Supreme Court Dismisses Meenakshi Natarajan's Plea Against Rajya Sabha Nomination Rejection, Allows Her To File Election Petition

The Supreme Court on Friday (June 12) dismissed the writ petition filed by Congress member Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha candidature from Madhya Pradesh, and gave her liberty to raise the challenge in an election petition filed in terms of the Representation of the People Act.A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice AS Chandurkar declined the exercise of its writ jurisdiction citing the Constitutional bar as per Article 329. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as non-maintainable.The bench rejected the argument of the petitioner that Article 32 can be invoked to cure "glaring and manifest" errors in the rejection of nomination. "If the Court accepts such arguments to find out glaring cases which are required to be interfered under Article 32/226, and the other sets of cases, where the rejection is not so improper prima facie to relegate them to election petitions, this Court would be reading some principle which is not provided for under Article 329. We are afraid that any such interpretation that in some of the matters this Court can interfere while leaving some others to avail the remedy of the election tribunal cannot be encouraged."Leaving open the remedy of election petition, the Court clarified that it has not observed anything on the merits of the case.Petitioner's argumentsNatarajan's nomination was rejected by Returning Officer Arvind Sharma on June 9 on the ground that she did not disclose in her Form 26 affidavit a private complaint filed against her in a Telangana Court despite receiving a summons on it.Today, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for Natarajan, submitted that as per Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, only the criminal cases where charges have been framed by the trial court need to be disclosed in the nomination. He added that as per Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, the potential accused has to be sent a notice before taking cognizance on a private complaint.Singhvi submitted that Natarajan has only received the notice under Section 223, and no cognizance on the complaint has been taken by the Court.Justice Mishra then said that a Court issues a summons only after applying its mind. Singhvi reiterated that the RP Act only requires disclosure of a criminal case only if charge has been framed. Further, as per the new law (S.223 BNSS), the accused has to be heard before taking cognizance, and the private complaint is at a pre-cognizance stage presently."If there is no cognizance, there is no case in the eye of law. Even if there is cognizance, law requires disclosure only if charge is framed," Singhi stated, adding that the Returning Officer's decision to reject her nomination was "bizarre & arbitrary" and resulted in "rank injustice." "If this way a level playing field can be made non-level, there can be no election in the country," he submitted.Singhvi informed that the private complaint was essentially a molestation allegation against another person, and Natarajan was added as the 4th accused in the private complaint only on the allegation that she did not take action against the alleged molester as the AICC member in charge of Telangana Congress. "The charge is he molested me three years ago, and I, who was appointed three years after as Telangana in-charge, did not take action," Singhvi stated, highlighting that Natarajan was appointed as Telangana in-charge only in 2025 whereas the alleged molestation occurred in 2022.Singhvi then stated that though the petitioner had approached the Election Commission of India, it has not said anything yet. "It is reprehensible," Singhvi stated.He added that the ECI declared the results yesterday, declaring the other candidates as the uncontested winners, resulting in the apprehension voiced by him yesterday at the time of mentioning becoming true. Responding to the query by the bench if the Court can interfere in a writ petition in the election process, Singhvi referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, and said that the Court can intervene to aid the election process. He cited the following passage from MS Gill. "For example, after the President notifies the nation on the holding of elections under s. 15 and the Commissioner publishes the calendar for the poll under s. 30, if the latter orders returning officers to accept only one nomination or only those which come from one party as distinguished from other parties or independents, is that order immune from immediate attack. We think not."He argued that the present case has parallels with the observations in the MS Gill. The results were declared yesterday, the last date of withdrawing nominations, as there was no rival candidate. Singhvi stated that this was the RO "preventing election."Justice Mishra asked if there is any precedent of the Court reversing the rejection of nomination in a writ petition. Singhvi contended that ...

Supreme Court Dismisses Meenakshi Natarajan's Plea Against Rajya Sabha Nomination Rejection, Allows Her To File Election Petition

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Supreme Court Dismisses Meenakshi Natarajan's Plea Against Rajya Sabha Nomination Rejection, Allows Her To File Election Petition

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers