Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh was rejected over alleged non-disclosure in her election affidavit, triggering a legal battle. The Supreme Court declined to intervene, holding that election disputes arising after the poll process begins must be challenged through the statutory election petition route.
The rejection of Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s nomination for the Rajya Sabha seat from Madhya Pradesh has now become a test of how far a Returning Officer can go while scrutinising nomination papers.
The key issues are whether the defects cited were substantial, and whether the Returning Officer should have extended the benefit of doubt to the candidate.
Earlier, The Rajya Sabha election for three seats from Madhya Pradesh was scheduled for June 18, 2026. The Congress nominated Meenakshi Natarajan as its candidate.
During scrutiny of nominations, the Returning Officer rejected Natarajan’s nomination after the BJP objected that she had not disclosed a pending court case in Telangana in her Form-26 affidavit. Officials stated that she was given an opportunity to furnish the details but the information was not provided to the Returning Officer’s satisfaction.
What is an Election Petition?
An election petition is the statutory mechanism through which the validity of the result of an election to Parliament, a state assembly, or a local body is tested. Put simply, it is the legally recognised way to challenge the election of a returned candidate.
Under the Representation of the People Act (RP Act), 1951:
- Section 80 states that no election shall be called into question except by way of an election petition.
- Section 80A gives the High Court jurisdiction to try these petitions.
- Section 81 requires that an election petition be filed within 45 days from the date the returned candidate’s election.
Further, Section 100(1)(c) of the RP Act provides that if a nomination has been improperly or wrongfully rejected, the election of the returned candidate can be declared void by the court.
This is why, despite the Supreme Court setback, the Congress still has a remaining legal pathway: an election petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
What Is The Case of Meenakshi Natarajan
BJP candidates Tarun Chugh, Rajneesh Aggarwal, and Mahesh Kewat were declared elected unopposed to three Rajya Sabha seats from Madhya Pradesh after Natarajan’s nomination was rejected.
The dispute began with a complaint filed by BJP State General Secretary Rahul Kothari to the Returning Officer. The complaint alleged that Natarajan had been listed as accused number four in a private complaint pending before a Hyderabad court and that she failed to disclose this in Form 26 submitted with her nomination papers.
After hearing the objection, the Returning Officer and Principal Secretary of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly Arvind Sharma rejected Natarajan’s nomination. In his order, he stated that records showed the court had taken cognizance of the case, that summons had been issued to the candidate, and that Natarajan herself had filed a reply.
However, the controversy has increasingly focused on the Election Commission handbook and its scrutiny guidelines.
Bhagwandev Israni, a former Principal Secretary of the Legislative Assembly (and who also served as Secretary of the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly), argued that rejection of nomination papers should not be mechanical or casual.
Israni said,
“The handbook provides detailed information on every aspect. Regarding the judgment in question, it was delivered under Section 10(13) of Chapter 6. However, in my view, it was incorrect to consider the matter based on that provision alone. Sections 12 and 13 concerning affidavits are interconnected and should be read together. The rules stipulate that if a discrepancy is noted, a reminder should be issued,”
The provision that appears to have weighed against Natarajan is Chapter 6, para 10(13) of the handbook. It states that incomplete affidavits can lead to rejection of the nomination if all columns are not filled even after reminders. Support for this approach is also drawn from the idea linked to Supreme Court reasoning that voters have a right to complete information about candidates.
But Israni contends that para 10(13) cannot be read alone. He points to para 10(12, which states that where the prescribed affidavit is not filed at all or where it is filed but considered defective or containing false information the nomination should not be rejected solely on that basis.
Instead, he argues, the Returning Officer must assess,
- whether the defect is substantial
- whether it is curable
- whether a reminder was issued
- whether the candidate was given a fair chance
He also cites para 9(1), which warns Returning Officers against rejecting nominations for minor or technical defects.
“There are significant errors here. In my 40-year career, having conducted numerous elections and served as a Returning Officer many times, I have never rejected a single nomination paper. Para 9(1) says do not reject any nomination paper on ground of any defect which is not of substantial character. Any mistake or error of technical or clerical nature should therefore be ignored,” Israni points out.
He further refers to para 6(6), which lays down a key principle: every nomination paper is presumed valid unless the contrary is obvious.
Israni said,
“Para 6(6) says there is a presumption that every nomination paper is valid unless the contrary is prima facie obvious or has been made out. In case of a reasonable doubt as to the validity of a nomination paper, the benefit of such doubt must go to the candidate concerned,”
Rule on the Criminal Case
The legal debate also turns on Section 33A of the RP Act, 1951, which deals with disclosure of criminal antecedents by candidates. Broadly, disclosure is required when:
- a candidate is accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment of two years or more, and
- charges have been framed by a competent court (or the candidate has been convicted and sentenced to one year or more).
Israni argues that the provision is critical and that disclosure is mandatory only in specified circumstances.
He said,
“Based on the documents I have reviewed and the provisions of Section 33A of the RP Act, 1951, disclosure is mandatory only if a person has committed an offense punishable by more than two years of imprisonment where a chargesheet has been filed and charges framed or if they have been convicted and sentenced to one year or more in a criminal case. Otherwise, disclosure is not required. Yet, in this instance, the issue is being raised despite the fact that cognizance of the alleged offence was never taken,”
Another point raised by Israni relates to Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. He says the notice in the Hyderabad matter was issued under Section 223, which provides that a magistrate cannot take cognizance without giving the accused an opportunity to be heard.
He argues that, if the stage of cognizance itself is being legally disputed, then it cannot be treated as a clear and decisive ground for rejecting the nomination.
The Congress’ Case
Senior lawyer Ajay Gupta, associated with Congress, argues that the document relied upon against Natarajan does not describe her as an accused.
Gupta contends that they had advanced detailed legal arguments before the Returning Officer. He argued that the document uses the term “Respondent”, whereas criminal cases typically refer to a person as “Accused.”
In his view, this indicates that characterising the matter as a criminal case is legally and factually incorrect.
The Congress maintains that Natarajan was not required to disclose the Hyderabad matter in Form 26 because, as per their position, it does not meet the disclosure requirement under Section 33A of the RP Act, 1951.
The Congress termed the rejection egregious and blatantly unlawful.
The party argued that the Telangana matter was merely a private complaint in which Natarajan was only a respondent and not an accused in any criminal case. The party sought intervention from the Election Commission and later moved the Supreme Court.
Court Proceedings
Natarajan approached the Supreme Court challenging the Returning Officer’s decision. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the nomination had been wrongly rejected and that the alleged non-disclosure did not involve a criminal case attracting disqualification provisions.
A Bench of Justice P. K. Mishra and Justice A. S. Chandurkar refused to interfere.
The Court held that once the election process has begun, judicial intervention is barred by Article 329(b) of the Constitution except through an election petition after the election process concludes
The Court reiterated the settled principle that election disputes cannot ordinarily be entertained through writ proceedings after commencement of the election process and declined to create an exception even if the candidate alleges a glaring illegality.
Subsequent Development in Telangana Case
An Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad declined to entertain the private petition due to lack of jurisdiction and directed the complainant to approach the Special Court for MPs and MLAs.
Natarajan’s lawyers later argued that this development further demonstrated that the Returning Officer had erred in treating the matter as a disclosable case.
BJP Defends the Rejection
Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Dr Mohan Yadav defended the decision and accused Congress of attacking constitutional institutions after its defeat.
He said Congress is now making allegations against the Election Commission and judiciary.
“The party needs to introspect and respect democratic processes”.
He also maintained that in a democratic system, transparency and seriousness of the election process are paramount, and if a candidate deliberately conceals important facts, it goes against democratic values.
Click Here To Read More Report On Meenakshi Natarajan