The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the writ petition filed by Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the rejection of her nomination for the Rajya Sabha elections from Madhya Pradesh. The Court, however, granted her liberty to raise the challenge through an election petition under the Representation of the People Act. The apex court said that courts cannot interrupt an ongoing election process and that her remedy lies in filing an election petition.
A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and A.S. Chandurkar held that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the constitutional bar under Article 329 of the Constitution. The bench declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32, emphasising that interference at this stage would undermine the framework laid down for election disputes. The Court made it clear that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Natarajan’s nomination was rejected by the Returning Officer on June 9 on the ground that she had failed to disclose a complaint filed against her in a Telangana court in her Form 26 affidavit, despite having received summons in the matter. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Natarajan, argued that as per Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, disclosure is required only in cases where charges have been framed. He contended that the complaint was at a pre-cognisance stage and that the rejection was arbitrary and resulted in gross injustice.
Singhvi submitted that the complaint pertained to allegations of molestation against another person, with Natarajan named as an accused only for allegedly not taking action as the AICC in-charge of Telangana. He highlighted the timeline, noting that she was appointed to the post in 2025, well after the alleged incident in 2022. He urged the Court to intervene to ensure a level playing field in the electoral process.
The respondents, including Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi representing the rival candidate, opposed the petition, asserting that the right to contest elections is a statutory right and not a fundamental one. They relied on the constitutional bar under Article 329, which ousts the jurisdiction of courts under Articles 32 and 226 during the election process. It was argued that the proper remedy lies in an election petition before the Election Tribunal. The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, also appeared for the State of Madhya Pradesh.
The Election Commission of India had declared the results on Thursday, naming the other candidates as uncontested winners in the absence of rival nominations. The Supreme Court rejected the argument of the petitioner that it could interfere in cases of manifest errors, observing that such an approach would create an inconsistent application of Article 329 and lead to a splitting of jurisdictions between writ petitions and election petitions.
The court noted that while charges have not been framed in the case against Meenakshi Natarajan, a summons has been issued to her. Justice Mishra said that a Court issues a summons only after applying its mind. The court said in its order, “The court has taken cognisance of compliant filed and summons have also been issued for her to appear, therefore the case is pending before the court.” The court added that her written statement was filed before the magisterial court and therefore she has full knowledge of the case.
The bench said that the Supreme Court has never intervened in a case involving the rejection of a candidate’s nomination, and they are not going to do that now. “However erroneous the decision may be, once a nomination is rejected, the remedy ordinarily lies elsewhere. Is there any judgment of this Court where we have interfered at that stage?” the bench of Justices PK Mishra and AS Chandurkar said.
The order mentioned, “Section 33A of RoP Act is present hereunder. The requirement of submitting information is provided under rule 4A of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Rule 4A provides that candidate shall at the time of delivering to RO the nomination papers also deliver to him affidavit sworn by the candidate. Form 26A contains the nature of information which a candidate is required to disclose or reveal in his affidavit. Clause 5 of Form 26 provides for the following information at the time of filing of nomination.”
The Supreme Court stated that if the court accepts the argument of the petitioner, the sanctity of the election process would be affected. The court stated that it was not inclined to accept the plea when the case should be dealt with a election petition, and dismissed the same.
With the dismissal of the writ petition, Meenakshi Natarajan may now pursue her challenge through the established electoral remedy by filing an election petition in the high court.
