SC dismisses Meenakshi Natarajan’s plea against rejection of RS nomination; says EC only remedy

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the rejection of her nomination papers for the Rajya Sabha election in Madhya Pradesh.

A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S Chandurkar observed that once a nomination is rejected by a returning officer, the appropriate remedy lies within the election process itself and not through direct judicial intervention at that stage.

The court referred to constitutional provisions under Article 329, which restricts judicial interference in electoral disputes during ongoing election proceedings. It also questioned whether there were any precedents where the Supreme Court had stepped in after rejection of nomination papers and indicated that it was not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article 226 at this stage.

The bench clarified that its ruling was limited to the maintainability of the petition and did not express any opinion on the merits of the allegations raised in the case.

Nomination rejection linked to alleged non-disclosure in affidavit

The case originated after the returning officer rejected Natarajan’s nomination for the Rajya Sabha election from Madhya Pradesh, citing alleged non-disclosure of a criminal case in her affidavit submitted in Form 26, as required under election rules.

Election officials stated that the objection was raised by BJP candidate Mahesh Kewat, who alleged that details of a case registered in Telangana were not disclosed in the nomination papers. Following scrutiny, returning officer Arvind Sharma concluded that the affidavit was incomplete and that relevant information had been omitted.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Natarajan, argued that the rejection was unjustified. He submitted that the alleged case did not meet the legal threshold requiring disclosure under election norms, as only summons had been issued and no formal charges had been framed. He further contended that the nomination complied with all legal disclosure requirements under the Representation of the People Act.

However, the Supreme Court maintained that once a nomination is rejected by the returning officer, challenges must ordinarily be pursued through election-related remedies rather than judicial intervention during the election process. It added that allowing such interference at this stage could affect the smooth conduct of elections.

The court’s dismissal means the petition will not proceed further at this stage, though it has left the legal merits of the allegations undecided.