Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan. File
| Photo Credit: PTI
The Supreme Court will hear on Friday (June 12, 2026) 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 of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and A.S. Chandurkar agreed to take up the matter following an oral request by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi. The Bench, however, declined to grant any interim relief preventing the declaration of the election result, observing that courts should ordinarily not intervene once the electoral process has commenced.
“Sorry, we cannot. We are posting it tomorrow, subject to clearance of all defects,” the Bench told Mr. Singhvi, who urged the court to pass an interim order preventing the authorities from declaring the result pending adjudication of the plea.
The Court’s order came amid concerns raised by the Congress that Thursday (June 11, 2026) was the final day for withdrawal of nominations. The party pointed out that, with Ms. Natarajan out of the fray, the BJP candidates could be elected unopposed after the withdrawal deadline expired.
“Today is the last day of withdrawal. They are technically entitled to declare the result after the deadline to withdraw nomination ends later today because it would be unopposed,” Mr. Singhvi, said, urging the Bench to at least direct the authorities not to declare the result till the matter was heard.
Contending that the rejection of Ms. Natarajan’s nomination was legally untenable, the senior counsel argued that the criminal proceedings relied upon by the Returning Officer had not advanced to the stage where a competent court had taken cognisance of the complaint. “My nomination has been rejected even though there is no cognisance taken by the court. How can they do this?” he submitted.
Justice Mishra, however, asked how the petition could be entertained once the election process was already under way. Mr. Singhvi responded that judicial intervention was permissible in cases involving a patent error and contended that refusing to do so would leave the petitioner without an effective remedy for years.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for the three BJP Rajya Sabha candidates from Madhya Pradesh, said they were not made parties in the petition and were opposing the mentioning.
Appearing for the Election Commission of India (ECI), senior advocate D.S. Naidu also questioned the maintainability of the plea and submitted that the petitioner’s remedy lay elsewhere.
The court finally agreed to list the plea for a hearing on Friday (June 12, 2026).
Ms. Natarajan, the Congress’ sole candidate for one of the three Rajya Sabha seats from Madhya Pradesh, has approached the Supreme Court challenging a June 9 order of the Returning Officer and Madhya Pradesh Assembly Principal Secretary Arvind Sharma rejecting her nomination papers.
Her nomination was challenged by BJP Rajya Sabha candidate Mahesh Kewat and BJP State general secretary Rahul Kothari, who alleged that she had failed to disclose details of a criminal case pending before a court in Hyderabad in her election affidavit.
Accepting the objection, the Returning Officer held that Ms. Natarajan’s affidavit was incomplete as it did not disclose a notice issued to her by a Hyderabad court in October 2025.
In the June 9 order, the Returning Officer said that the Congress leader had submitted an incomplete Form 26 affidavit with her nomination papers and “concealed material facts” relating to the court proceedings.
The criminal case arose from a former associate of a senior Congress politician, who alleged that she had been subjected to abuse, coercion, intimidation and exploitation during the course of a personal relationship spanning several months. The case is presently at the stage of consideration of charges.
While Ms. Natarajan is not an accused in those proceedings, her name figures in a separate private complaint filed by the woman before a Hyderabad court in August 2025.
The Congress has maintained that Ms. Natarajan was merely a respondent in the proceedings and not an accused, and that no FIR was registered pursuant to her response to the complaint. According to the party, a pre-cognisance notice cannot be treated as a pending criminal case requiring disclosure under election law.
Published – June 11, 2026 12:28 pm IST
