Supreme Court Dismisses Congress Nominee Meenakshi Natarajan’s Plea Against Rajya Sabha Nomination Rejection

New Delhi: In a big setback for Congress Rajya Sabha nominee from Madhya Pradesh, Meenakshi Natarajan, the Supreme Court on Friday dismissed her plea challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination, holding that courts cannot interrupt an ongoing election process and that her remedy lies in filing an election petition.

The court observed that once a candidate’s nomination is rejected by a returning officer, the appropriate remedy lies in approaching the Election Commission, according to a News18 report.

The Congress candidate's nomination was rejected over non-disclosure of a criminal case in Telangana.

"I have been saying from day one that the Election Commission is deeply compromised, and today this has been proven once again. When the lawyer for the State of Madhya Pradesh stands up, this isn't a matter concerning the State of Madhya Pradesh," Natarajan said reacting to Supreme Court rejecting her plea.

"We weren't fighting against the states; we were talking about the Election Commission. We were highlighting how the Returning Officer was compromised, and they have been exposed before the public," she said speaking to reporters.

A bench comprising of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S Chandurkar held that the settled legal position bars judicial interference during the conduct of elections and rejected Natarajan's attempt to invoke the court's jurisdiction at this stage.

“We are afraid that any such interpretation that in some of the matters this Court can interfere while leaving some others to avail the remedy of the election tribunal cannot be encouraged," the bench said.

Constitutional bar on interference

Article 329 of the Indian Constitution bars courts from interfering in electoral matters, ensuring elections proceed without judicial delays.

A candidate is required to disclose criminal cases only where the offence carries a minimum sentence of two years, and that in the present case, only a summons had been issued, Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Natarajan, submitted.

Singhvi argued that the nomination for the Rajya Sabha elections from Madhya Pradesh had been wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer on the basis of alleged non-disclosure of a criminal case under the Representation of the People Act.

Singhvi relied on judgments including Mohinder Singh Gill and Ashok Kumar to argue that constitutional courts could intervene in exceptional circumstances where such intervention would aid, rather than hinder, the electoral process.

Election Commission's opposition

The plea was opposed by the Election Commission, the returned candidate, and other respondents, who argued that the right to contest an election is a statutory right and that the settled legal position is that a rejected candidate's remedy lies only through an election petition.

They also argued that Form 26 requires disclosure of all pending criminal cases and that neither Article 32 nor Article 226 can be invoked to challenge a nomination rejection during an ongoing election.

The top court observed that disclosure requirements are governed by statutory provisions and Rule 4A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, which requires candidates to file an affidavit in Form 26 containing prescribed information.

Court cites precedents

Relying on the landmark Ponnuswami judgment and subsequent precedents, the bench stated the principle against judicial interference in the election process has consistently been followed whenever parties have sought to challenge steps taken during the conduct of elections.

The court specifically rejected Singhvi's argument that courts should intervene where the rejection of a nomination appears glaringly illegal.

The bench held that accepting such a contention would require courts to create a distinction between "glaring" and other cases of nomination rejection, a principle not contemplated under the constitutional scheme governing elections.

It further observed that permitting judicial intervention in some nomination-rejection cases while directing others to pursue election petitions would amount to reading into the Constitution an exception that does not exist.