Congress Leader Meenakshi Natarajan Moves MP High Court Challenging Rajya Sabha Nomination Rejection

Senior Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan on Tuesday moved an Election Petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the rejection of her nomination for the Rajya Sabha elections from Madhya Pradesh.

The petition has been moved over a month after the Supreme Court dismissed her writ petition on the same issue, holding that it could not intervene in the electoral process under Article 32 of the Constitution and that her remedy lay in filing an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Natarajan's nomination was rejected on June 9 by the Returning Officer and Madhya Pradesh Assembly Principal Secretary Arvind Sharma.

The Returning Officer held that she had failed to disclose in her Form 26 affidavit details of a private criminal complaint pending before a court in Telangana despite having received summons in the matter. According to the Returning Officer, the omission rendered her affidavit incomplete, leading to rejection of her candidature.

Natarajan had got no relief from the Election Commission of India (ECI).

Before the high court, she has stated that a court in Telangana had issued summons against her during the hearing of a private complaint filed by a woman and that the summons were issued to seek her response before cognisance was taken.

Appearing for Natrajan, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi had taken a similar plea before the Supreme Court, arguing that the rejection order was "bizarre," "arbitrary," and contrary to Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act.

He had submitted that the law requires disclosure only of criminal cases in which charges have been framed and that the Telangana proceedings relied upon by the Returning Officer were still at a pre-cognizance stage.

Singhvi had explained that under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (which corresponds to Section 200 of the erstwhile CrPC), a prospective accused must be heard before cognizance is taken in a private complaint. According to him, Natarajan had merely received a notice and no cognizance had yet been taken.

"If there is no cognizance, there is no case in the eye of law. Even if there is cognizance, the law requires disclosure only where charges are framed," Singhvi had argued.

He had further contended that the complaint itself stemmed from allegations made against another individual and that Natarajan had been arrayed as an accused only because she allegedly failed to act after being appointed Telangana Congress in-charge in 2025, several years after the alleged incident.

However, the respondents had strongly opposed the petition. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi had argued that the right to contest elections is a statutory right and not a fundamental right, making Article 32 unavailable.

Relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (1952), Rohatgi had contended that disputes arising from nomination rejection could only be examined through an election petition after completion of the electoral process.

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the Election Commission of India, had also argued that election disputes fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of election tribunals under the Representation of the People Act and that the declaration of uncontested results was carried out in accordance with statutory requirements.

Accepting the respondents' objection on maintainability, the Supreme Court had dismissed the writ petition while preserving Natarajan's right to challenge the rejection through an election petition.

The election petition is likely to be taken up for hearing by the high court's Jabalpur bench this week.

Case Title: Meenakshi Natrajan vs. Tarun Chugh