The Supreme Court on Friday (June 12, 2026) dismissed a plea filed by Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination papers from Madhya Pradesh.
A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and A.S. Chandurkar observed that Article 329 of the Constitution bars judicial interference in ongoing electoral processes.
“..Whenever an attempt is made to invoke this Court’s or the High Court’s writ jurisdiction to interject during the process of conduct of elections, on every occasion the Court has rejected such an attempt, keeping in view the principles contained in Article 329 of the Constitution”, the Bench said.
Observing that the appropriate remedy in such matters is an election petition, the Bench added that recognising an exception for “glaring” or “patent” errors in the rejection of nomination papers would amount to reading into Article 329 a “principle” that does not exist.
“If this court accepts such an argument to find out glaring cases which are required to be interfered with under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India and the other set of cases in which the rejection is not so improper prima facie, relegating them to avail the remedy of an election petition, this court would be reading some principle which is not provided for under Article 329,” it said.
The Bench, however, clarified that its observations on the rejection of Ms. Natarajan’s nomination would not prejudice any election petition that may be instituted before the jurisdictional High Court.
‘Patent error’
During the hearing, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Ms. Natarajan, argued that the case warranted judicial interference as the rejection of his client’s nomination suffered from a “patent error”. He also questioned the Election Commission’s decision to proceed with the declaration of results on Thursday (June 11, 2026) despite the top court being cognisant of the matter.
“Look at the conduct. Your Lordships listed the matter today, and they declared the results yesterday. She is only seeking an opportunity to contest. Let her fight and lose. She is only standing for election,” he said.
Mr. Singhvi further pointed out that the poll body was yet to decide the Congress’ representation challenging the returning officer’s decision to reject Ms. Natarajan’s nomination. “The Election Commission decides not to decide, the conduct is reprehensible. It does not discharge its constitutional duty,” he submitted.
The Bench, however, questioned whether any judicial intervention was permissible at this stage once the returning officer had rejected a candidate’s nomination.
“However erroneous the decision may be, once a nomination is rejected, the remedy ordinarily lies elsewhere. Is there any judgment of this Court where we have interfered at that stage?” the Bench asked.
‘Not a fundamental right’
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the three BJP Rajya Sabha candidates from Madhya Pradesh, questioned the maintainability of the writ petition. He argued that the right to contest an election is a statutory right and not a fundamental right and, therefore, cannot be enforced through a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
“Supreme Court judgments have held that the right to contest an election is a statutory right. If you have no fundamental right, Article 32 petition is not maintainable,” he submitted.
Ms. Natarajan, the Congress’ sole candidate for one of the three Rajya Sabha seats from Madhya Pradesh, had approached the Supreme Court challenging a June 9 order of Returning Officer and Madhya Pradesh Assembly Principal Secretary Arvind Sharma rejecting her nomination papers.
Meanwhile, BJP candidates Tarun Chugh, Rajneesh Agrawal and Mahesh Kewat were declared elected unopposed to the three Rajya Sabha seats from the State on Thursday.
Ms. Natarajan’s nomination was challenged by Mr. 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 his June 9 order, he further held that the Congress leader had submitted an incomplete Form 26 affidavit with her nomination papers and had “concealed material facts” relating to the court proceedings.
The criminal case arose from a complaint filed by 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 12, 2026 01:42 pm IST
