Refusing to interfere in the matter, the Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the petition moved by Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan against the rejection of her nomination papers for the Rajya Sabha elections.
A Bench of Justice PK Mishra and Justice AS Chandurkar said the law in election-related disputes was settled that an election petition was not maintainable after the commencement of election process.
"Whenever an attempt has been made to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32, or that of the High Courts under Article 226, during the process of elections, this Court has repeatedly declined interference, having regard to the constitutional mandate contained in Article 329(b) of the Constitution," the Bench said.
The Bench refused to accept the argument that where the rejection of a nomination is ex facie illegal, manifestly arbitrary and demonstrably erroneous, the Court ought to intervene“We are afraid that any interpretation permitting courts to entertain challenges to rejection of nominations in some cases, while relegating other candidates to the statutory remedy of an election petition, would be inconsistent with the settled constitutional position and ought not to be encouraged," the Bench said, while dismissing the plea.
Natarajan's candidature was rejected by returning officer and Madhya Pradesh assembly principal secretary Arvind Sharma on June 9.This was after objections were raised by BJP leaders including Rajya Sabha candidate Mahesh Kewat and party state general secretary Rahul Kothari. The BJP alleged that Natarajan, in her election affidavit, had failed to disclose details of a case pending before a court in Hyderabad.
According to the returning officer's order, Natarajan had responded to a notice issued by a Hyderabad court in October 2025 but did not mention the matter in Form 26 submitted with her nomination papers. The returning officer held that the affidavit was incomplete and rejected her candidature on that basis.
Congress leaders have maintained that the rejection is legally unsustainable, arguing that no criminal case exists against Natarajan since no court has yet taken cognisance of the private complaint filed against her, and that a pre-cognisance notice does not constitute a pending criminal case requiring mandatory disclosure.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Natarajan, submitted that the returning officer had acted completely arbitrarily. Singhvi added that in the case pending against her, cognisance may have been taken, but charges have not yet been framed.Urging top court to intervene in the matter, Singhvi argued that good governance requires that electoral processes be allowed to function according to law.
However, the Court referred to the settled law that once a nomination is rejected, only an election petition was maintainable.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also appeared in the matter on behalf of State of Madhya Pradesh. However, the Court declined to allow the intervention, stating that the State had nothing to do with the election.
Follow us
