Supreme Court Refuses To Revive Meenakshi Natarajan's Rajya Sabha Nomination, Says Remedy Lies In Election Petition

The Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice A.S. Chandurkar ruled that the constitutional bar under Article 329 prevented judicial interference at this stage of the election process.

While declining to entertain the plea, the Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of Natarajan’s challenge and that all issues remained open for consideration in an election petition.

Rejecting the petitioner’s plea that constitutional courts could step in to correct “glaring” and “manifest” errors in nomination rejections, the Bench observed that accepting such an argument would create an artificial distinction between election disputes that deserved immediate judicial intervention and those that did not.

“If the Court accepts such arguments to find out glaring cases which are required to be interfered under Article 32 or Article 226, and the other sets of cases are relegated to election petitions, this Court would be reading some principle which is not provided for under Article 329,” the Bench observed.

Natarajan’s nomination was rejected on June 9 by 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.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the State of Madhya Pradesh (Intervenor).

Appearing for Natarajan, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the rejection order was “bizarre,” “arbitrary,” and contrary to Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act. He 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 explained that under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 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 argued.

He 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.

Invoking the Constitution Bench decision in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, Singhvi argued that courts could intervene where doing so would facilitate, rather than obstruct, the electoral process. He maintained that the rejection of Natarajan’s nomination had effectively prevented a contest and resulted in the Rajya Sabha election being declared uncontested.

The respondents strongly opposed the petition. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi 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, Rohatgi 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, 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 dismissed the writ petition while preserving Natarajan’s right to challenge the rejection through an election petition.