The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to stay the returning officer’s decision to reject Congress candidate Meenakshi Natarajan’s nomination for the Rajya Sabha polls from Madhya Pradesh over alleged non-disclosure of a pending criminal case against her.

The court, however, agreed to examine the validity of the rejection order passed by the returning officer.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar prima facie felt that courts usually do not interfere in electoral disputes through urgent hearings or by taking up writ petitions. The court said any dispute ought to be raised only through a proper election petition mandated under the Representation of the People Act.

The bench cited the apex court judgment in the Election Commission of India Vs Ashok Kumar (2000) case wherein it was held that courts should not interfere in electoral matters, particularly when the process had already been set in motion.

Nevertheless, the court agreed to examine the issue after senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Congress candidate, submitted that in cases of “glaring irregularities”, the constitutional courts can always intervene.

The Congress, which could have won one Rajya Sabha seat based on its Assembly strength, has found itself elbowed out of the race following the rejection of Natarajan’s candidature. Three BJP candidates won unopposed.

Singhvi argued that Natarajan’s nomination papers were rejected on June 9 by the returning officer on the premise that she had not disclosed the alleged criminal proceedings pending against her before a Hyderabad court.

The senior counsel argued that in terms of Section 33A of the RP Act, the disclosure was essential only in cases where cognisance had been taken by the competent court. But in this case, Singhvi said no cognisance had been taken and she was merely one of the several respondents in a private case filed by a former party functionary. “Without cognisance, no criminal case exists,” Singhvi argued.

He urged the court to direct the EC not to declare the results — where the BJP won all three Madhya Pradesh seats unopposed — as Thursday was the last day for withdrawal of nominations.

“Technically, they are entitled to declare the results after the deadline to withdraw nomination ends later today because it would be unopposed, since your Lordship will be taking up the matter tomorrow, the EC may be asked not to declare the results till then,” Singhvi argued.

However, Justice Mishra, heading the bench, declined to pass any stay, saying: “Sorry, we cannot. We are posting it tomorrow, subject to clearance of all defects.”

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the BJP candidates, objected to the maintainability of the petition. He submitted that neither had the BJP candidates been made party to the petition, nor had an advance notice been served on them as per rules.

Senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, representing the EC, also questioned the maintainability of the petition, saying that the remedy lay “elsewhere” and complaining that the petitioner did not serve any papers or documents on his client.

Natarajan’s nomination paper was rejected by the returning officer for the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sabha elections over objections from the BJP candidates and leaders who complained that the Congress nominee had not disclosed in her affidavit the pendency of a criminal case against her before the Hyderabad court.

The case in the form of a private complaint was lodged by a Congress activist who accused some senior leaders of misbehaving with her and cited Natarajan as respondent No. 4 on the ground that as the All India Congress Committee in-charge for Telangana, she had failed to take action against her tormentors.