Supreme Court Dismisses Meenakshi Natarajan's Petition Against Rajya Sabha Nomination Rejection
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has dismissed Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan's petition challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh. The court emphasized that judicial interference in ongoing electoral processes is not allowed, and candidates must pursue election petitions for grievances. Natarajan's nomination was rejected due to an incomplete affidavit and failure to disclose pending complaints. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued for her case, but the court upheld the established legal principles regarding electoral integrity. This decision reinforces the framework governing election processes in India.
Jun 12, 2026, 14:17 IST
Supreme Court's Ruling on Natarajan's Petition
The Supreme Court rejected Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan's petition on Friday, which challenged the cancellation of her Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh. The court stated that judicial interference in ongoing electoral processes is not permissible, and the appropriate recourse is to file an election petition. A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S. Chandurkar emphasized that established legal principles prohibit judicial intervention during elections, thereby dismissing Natarajan's attempt to invoke the court's jurisdiction at this stage.
The court noted that the Returning Officer had rejected Natarajan's nomination on the grounds that she submitted an incomplete 'Form 26' affidavit and failed to disclose information regarding pending complaints against her.
Details of the Case
The Returning Officer's order also indicated that Natarajan had provided written arguments during the complaint proceedings, thus she was aware of the case details. The bench observed that Natarajan had approached the Election Commission against the Returning Officer's decision and had presented her case in writing. She had also personally argued her position before the entire Election Commission on June 10, but no orders were issued regarding her plea.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Natarajan, contended that the restrictions under Article 329(b) of the Constitution do not apply in this case, as the petition aimed to ensure a fair and transparent electoral process rather than disrupt the elections.
Arguments Presented
Singhvi argued that the rejection of her nomination was clearly unlawful, as the complaint that triggered the dispute had neither been acknowledged nor had any charges been established. He referenced decisions in cases involving Mohinder Singh Gill and Ashok Kumar, asserting that constitutional courts can intervene under specific circumstances, provided such intervention aids rather than obstructs the electoral process.
The Election Commission, the elected candidates, and other respondents opposed this petition, arguing that the right to contest elections is a legal entitlement. According to established legal norms, a candidate whose nomination has been rejected has recourse only through an election petition. They also contended that it is essential to disclose all pending criminal cases in Form 26, and neither Article 32 nor Article 226 can be invoked to challenge the rejection of nominations during the electoral process.