The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s petition challenging the rejection of her nomination for the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sabha polls over alleged non-disclosure of a pending criminal case against her, observing that the appropriate remedy would be to file an election petition in a court.
The petition's dismissal effectively affirms the Election Commission’s declaration on Thursday night that BJP candidates Tarun Chugh, Rajneesh Agrawal and Mahesh Kewat had been elected unopposed to the three seats.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S. Chandrukar dismissed the petition after hearing senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Natarajan, senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi for the three BJP leaders and senior advocate Dama Seshadhri Naidu for the EC.
Rohatgi questioned the maintainability of the petition on the ground that “right to contest” was a statutory right, not a fundamental right, and any alleged infraction could be challenged by way of an election petition and not through an Article 32 petition.
Justice Mishra, heading the bench, said the petition filed by Natarajan under Article 32 (for enforcement of fundamental rights) cannot be entertained as it would otherwise be in conflict with Article 329 of the Constitution sub clause (B), which states that “no election to either House of Parliament or to the House of either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate legislature”.
While dictating the order, Justice Mishra observed: “Whenever an attempt is made to invoke this court’s jurisdiction under Article 32 or the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to interject during the conduct of elections, (the courts) had on every occasion rejected such an attempt, keeping in view the principles contained in Article 329 of the Constitution.”
The bench turned down Singhvi’s plea that constitutional courts could always interfere in glaring instances of violation of statutory rules and principles of natural justice.
“If this court accepts such an arguments to find out glaring cases which are required to be interfered under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India and other set of cases in which the rejection is not improper prima facie, relegating them to avail the remedy of filing election petition, this court would be reading some principle which is not provided for under Article 329 of the Constitution of India,” the bench said.
“In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which fails and is hereby dismissed,” it added.
During his argument, Singhvi submitted that the rejection of Natarajan’s nomination was wrong as disclosure of alleged pending criminal cases was necessary under Section 33A of the Representation of the People's Act, 1951, only when a court had taken cognisance of the charge or framed charges.
In Natarajan’s case, he said, the trial court in Hyderabad had only issued her summons, and Section 223 of the BNSS mandated “that no cognisance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard”. In this case, Singhvi pointed out, the stage of cognisance had not been reached.
Natrajan’s nomination paper was rejected by the returning officer following objections from BJP leaders who complained that the Congress candidate had not disclosed in her affidavit the pendency of a criminal case against her before a Hyderabad court.
The case, in the form of a private complaint, was lodged by a woman Congress activist, accusing some senior party leaders of misbehaving with her. She had cited Natarajan as respondent No. 4 on the ground that she had failed to take action against her tormentors as the AICC in charge of Telangana.
Singhvi said Natarajan was appointed AICC in-charge in 2025, while the allegations of misconduct were brought in 2002.