SC Dismisses Meenakshi Natarajan’s Petition Challenging Rejection of her Nomination, ECI still Silent

Manas Dasgupta

NEW DELHI, June 12: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the petition filed by the Congress candidate for Rajya Sabha from Madhya Pradesh Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the rejection of her nomination by the Returning Officer after observing that the courts should ordinarily refrain from intervening in the ongoing election process and the only remedy in such cases was to file an election petition.

A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and A.S. Chandurkar observed that, in view of Article 329(b) of the Constitution, it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Returning Officer (RO) and that an election petition was the only remedy available in such cases. The provision stipulates that no election to either House of Parliament or a State Legislature can be called in question except through an election petition filed in the manner prescribed by law.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) which was also approached by the Congress before moving the Supreme Court requesting it to review the returning officer’s decision rejecting her nomination, is yet to communicate its decision even three days after Ms Natarajan’s move but the EC officials had made it known that the commission was highly unlikely to reverse the RO’s decision.

Reacting to the Supreme Court’s rejection of her plea, Ms Natarajan said the decision was not a personal setback but one that affected “democracy and the Constitution of India.” “I had said from the beginning that the members of the Election Commission were compromised. When our representatives approached the Election Commission, they did not receive any response for 48 hours. At least the Supreme Court heard our plea and delivered a verdict,” she said.

Senior Congress leader Rahul Gandhi termed the Madhya Pradesh issue a case of seat chori (theft). In a post on social media platform X, Mr Gandhi said it was easier to fix elections with the help of Election Commission rather than win them. “After vote Chori and Sarkar Chori — the BJP-EC jugalbandi has finished the contest before it has even begun with Seat Chori,” he said.

“Congress candidate Meenakshi Natarajanji submitted every document. No pending cases. The EC cancelled her nomination on a frivolous BJP objection. Parimal Nathwaniji, the BJP-backed Independent contesting from Jharkhand, got his own name wrong on the form and skipped multiple mandatory disclosures. The EC gave him an extension to fix everything,” the Opposition leader added. He said the same EC treated two candidates very differently. “One was disqualified without even a hearing. The other was rewarded despite not following the rules,” Mr Gandhi said.

The Congress has said it would challenge the rejection of Ms Natarajan’s nomination legally and politically. It also announced a nation-wide campaign on issues such as inflation, unemployment, the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (Undergraduate) (NEET-UG) and other paper leaks and the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) On-Screen Marking (OSM) controversy.

The decision was taken at a meeting of the party’s top leadership, presided by Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge and attended by the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, general secretaries K. C. Venugopal, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Jairam Ramesh, Bhupesh Baghel, Randeep Surjewala and party in-charges and Pradesh Congress Committee (PCC) chiefs.

The Supreme Court in its order said, “…Whenever an attempt is made to invoke this Court’s or the High Court’s writ jurisdiction to interject during the conduct of elections, on every occasion the Court has rejected such an attempt, keeping in view the principles contained in Article 329 of the Constitution,” the Bench said.

All the three BJP candidates Tarun Chugh, Rajneesh Agrawal and Mahesh Kewat were declared elected unopposed to the three Rajya Sabha seats from the State on Thursday. As per the numerical strength of the contesting parties in the MP Assembly, the BJP was sure to win two and the Congress one seat to the Upper House.

The Supreme Court held that recognising an exception for “glaring” or “patent” errors in the rejection of nomination papers would amount to reading into Article 329 a “principle” that does not exist. It noted that such an approach would run contrary to the law laid down in its 1952 judgment in N.P. Ponnuswami v. RO, which bars the invocation of writ jurisdiction to challenge disputes arising during the course of an election.

…if this Court accepts such an argument to find out glaring cases which are required to be interfered with under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the other set of cases in which the rejection is not so improper prima facie, relegating them to avail the remedy of filing an election petition, this Court will be reading some principle which is not provided for under Article 329 of the Constitution. We are afraid that any such interpretation that, in some cases, the court may interfere where a candidate’s nomination paper is wrongly rejected, while leaving some others to file an election petition, cannot be accepted”, the Bench underlined.

Appearing for Ms Natarajan, senior advocate A.M. Singhvi argued that the RO’s decision suffered from a “patent error” and warranted interference by the court. He submitted that Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act requires disclosure only of cases in which charges have been framed. According to him, setting aside the RO’s order would “facilitate” rather than obstruct, the electoral process and would not fall foul of the constitutional bar on judicial intervention in election matters.

The senior counsel also questioned the poll body’s decision to proceed with the declaration of results on Thursday despite the top court being cognisant of the matter. “Look at the conduct. My Lords are listing it today, and they declared the results last night… She [Ms Natarajan] is only seeking an opportunity to contest. Let her fight and lose. She is only standing for election,” he said.

Mr Singhvi further pointed out that the poll body was yet to decide the Congress’ written representation challenging the RO’s decision to reject Ms Natarajan’s nomination. “The Election Commission decides to keep silent…the conduct is reprehensible. It does not discharge its constitutional duty. If the level playing field is made non-level, then there cannot be any elections in this country,” he submitted.

However, Justice Mishra underscored that there was no precedent for judicial interference at this stage. “Show us any judgment of this Court where, after the nomination of a candidate in a parliamentary election, we have set aside the order of the RO and accepted the nomination,” he asked Mr Singhvi. Mr Singhvi, however, pointed out that the absence of a precedence could not preclude the court from intervening in an exceptional case. He argued that, as the sentinel on the qui vive, the court was duty-bound to step in when confronted with “glaring facts.”

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the three BJP nominees who were declared elected unopposed to the Rajya Sabha from Madhya Pradesh, however, questioned the maintainability of the writ petition. He argued that the right to contest an election is a statutory right and not a fundamental right and, therefore, cannot be enforced through a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. “Supreme Court judgments have held that the right to contest an election is a statutory right. If you have no fundamental right, an Article 32 petition is not maintainable,” he submitted.

Senior advocate D.S. Naidu, appearing for the Election Commission, argued that the Congress leader was required to disclose all pending criminal proceedings before the RO, irrespective of the stage at which they stood. He contended that the statutory disclosure requirement is not limited to cases in which cognisance has been taken, or charges have been framed, and submitted that the appropriate remedy lay in an election petition.

The Bench ultimately dismissed the petition, holding that entertaining it would run contrary to settled judicial precedent. It, however, clarified that its observations on the rejection of Ms Natarajan’s nomination would not prejudice any election petition that may be instituted before the concerned High Court.

Ms Natarajan’s candidature was opposed by BJP Rajya Sabha candidate Mahesh Kewat and BJP state general secretary Rahul Kothari, alleging that she had failed to disclose details of a criminal case pending before a Hyderabad court in her election affidavit.

Accepting the objection, the RO held that Ms Natarajan’s affidavit was incomplete as it did not disclose a notice issued to her by the Hyderabad court in October 2025. In his June 9 order, the RO noted that Ms Natarajan had responded to the notice but had omitted to disclose the proceedings in Form 26 filed along with her nomination papers.

The Congress, however, has maintained that Ms Natarajan was only a respondent in the proceedings and not an accused, and that no FIR was registered pursuant to her response to the complaint. According to the party, a notice issued before a court takes cognisance of a matter does not amount to a pending criminal case requiring disclosure under election law.

The 60-odd Congress MLAs from Madhya Pradesh are likely to launch a protest against the decision of the Returning Officer in New Delhi soon. In a post on X, Mr Kharge said the country was facing serious challenges, including inflation, unemployment, examination scandals and social inequality. “Paper leaks in NEET and various recruitment exams, along with controversies related to the education system, have shaken the trust of millions of youth and their families. Shri Rahul Gandhi has personally met with affected students and youth and has firmly presented their voice before the nation,” he said.

“Today, unfortunately, we see that those institutions and systems which took decades to build are being deliberately weakened. Therefore, our responsibility is not only toward political struggle, but also toward safeguarding India’s Constitution, democracy, and social justice,” Mr Kharge asserted.

The party has drawn up a list of issues which would be highlighted in the three-four month long campaign. Though the exact modalities are being worked out, the campaign is expected start by end of June. Mr Gandhi is said to have warned his colleagues of an economic downturn and urged them to stand with the people, telling them that price rise, fuel shortage, paper leaks are because of “wrong policies” of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Ms Vadra reportedly said the party should focus on a targeted campaign.

Addressing a press conference with Mr Ramesh after the nearly three-hour meeting, Mr Venugopal described recent developments in Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand as a matter of “great worry.” Calling the Madhya Pradesh episode “seat chori”, Mr Venugopal said the developments reflected the “pathetic condition of Indian democracy.” “Today’s meeting discussed the matter in detail. We will fight this issue politically and legally,” he said.