Meenakshi Natarajan Moves Supreme Court After Rajya Sabha Nomination Rejected In Madhya Pradesh

The matter is likely to be mentioned before the Supreme Court’s vacation bench for urgent listing, with the Congress contending that Natarajan’s nomination was unlawfully rejected on the basis of a legal proceeding that did not amount to a pending criminal case requiring disclosure in her election affidavit.

The challenge arises from a decision of the Returning Officer (RO), who rejected Natarajan’s nomination following objections raised by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The BJP alleged that the Congress leader had failed to disclose details of proceedings pending before a court in Telangana.

According to the RO, Natarajan had filed an incomplete nomination form by not mentioning a court summons issued in connection with a 2022 case relating to a Congress leader in Telangana. The officer accepted the BJP’s objection and held that the omission warranted rejection of her candidature.

The Congress, however, has maintained that Natarajan was neither an accused nor facing any criminal prosecution in the matter. The party argued that no FIR had been registered against her and that the proceedings cited by the BJP did not constitute a criminal case that required disclosure under election law.

On Wednesday i.e. June 10, a high-level Congress delegation comprising K.C. Venugopal, Jairam Ramesh, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Vivek Tankha, Randeep Surjewala, Bhupesh Baghel, Deepa Dasmunshi and Meenakshi Natarajan met Election Commission officials and sought immediate intervention.

Reportedly, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi termed the RO’s decision “poor and absolutely partisan”, arguing that the alleged criminal case relied upon for rejecting the nomination did not legally exist because the competent court had not taken cognisance of the matter.

As per media reports, Natarajan described the rejection as “a subversion of democracy” while expressing faith in constitutional institutions. “We still have full faith in constitutional institutions. That is why we are fighting this battle,” she said.

Reports further indicated that the Chief Election Commissioner and the two Election Commissioners held extensive deliberations on the issue, examining provisions of the Representation of the People Act, relevant Supreme Court precedents on disclosure obligations and earlier election-related disputes. However, no decision had been taken by the Commission till late Wednesday.

The controversy centres around Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which governs scrutiny of nomination papers. The Congress has argued that the alleged omission, even if assumed, did not amount to a defect of a substantial character warranting rejection of a nomination.

Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha, who reviewed the nomination papers before filing, also contended that a candidate cannot be disqualified without being afforded a meaningful opportunity to address any alleged deficiency in the nomination documents.