Senior Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan has moved the Supreme Court challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh. The plea raises important questions on candidate disclosure obligations, election transparency, pending court proceedings, and the legality of the Returning Officer’s decision.
Senior Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan has approached the Supreme Court challenging the rejection of her nomination papers for the upcoming Rajya Sabha election from Madhya Pradesh, setting the stage for a significant legal battle over the scope of disclosure obligations imposed on electoral candidates.
The petition comes days before polling for the Rajya Sabha seat, which is scheduled to take place on June 18. Natarajan’s challenge seeks judicial intervention against the decision of the Returning Officer, who rejected her candidature on the ground that she allegedly failed to disclose details relating to proceedings pending before a court in Hyderabad.
The dispute has sparked a larger debate on election transparency, candidate disclosures, and the distinction between a pending criminal case and a pre-cognisance judicial proceeding.
Who is Meenakshi Natarajan?: Meenakshi Natarajan is a senior Congress leader with a long political career. She previously represented the Mandsaur Lok Sabha constituency in Madhya Pradesh and has held several organisational responsibilities within the Congress party.
Known for her involvement in party affairs and grassroots political work, Natarajan currently serves as the All India Congress Committee (AICC) in-charge for Telangana, a key organisational assignment within the party structure. Her nomination to the Rajya Sabha was viewed by the Congress as an important step toward strengthening its parliamentary presence.
Rajya Sabha Election in Madhya Pradesh
The controversy arises in the context of elections to three Rajya Sabha seats from Madhya Pradesh. The Rajya Sabha, the Upper House of Parliament, is elected through an indirect electoral process in which Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) cast their votes. Given the numerical strength of political parties in the State Assembly, nominations and scrutiny of candidates often play a crucial role in determining the outcome.
The June 18 election had assumed political significance as both the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Congress sought representation in the Upper House from the State. However, the rejection of Natarajan’s nomination has substantially altered the electoral landscape and may affect the opposition party’s prospects in the contest.
On June 9, Returning Officer and Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly Principal Secretary Arvind Sharma rejected Natarajan’s nomination papers following objections raised by BJP leaders. The objections were reportedly submitted by BJP Rajya Sabha candidate Mahesh Kewat and party State General Secretary Rahul Kothari during the scrutiny process.
According to the Returning Officer, Natarajan’s election affidavit failed to disclose certain proceedings pending before a court in Hyderabad. The officer concluded that the omission rendered the affidavit incomplete and consequently invalidated her nomination. The decision resulted in her exclusion from the electoral contest.
The controversy centres on a matter pending before a court in Hyderabad. According to the Returning Officer’s findings, Natarajan had received and responded to a notice issued by the Hyderabad court in October 2025. However, when she subsequently filed Form 26 an affidavit that election candidates are required to submit disclosing various personal, financial, and legal details the matter was allegedly not mentioned.
The Returning Officer held that the omission constituted non-disclosure of a material fact and therefore violated the disclosure requirements applicable to election candidates. Based on this reasoning, her nomination papers were rejected.
Congress Questions Legality of Rejection
The Congress has strongly contested the Returning Officer’s decision and described the rejection as legally untenable. Party leaders and legal representatives have argued that the proceedings before the Hyderabad court do not amount to a pending criminal case requiring disclosure under election laws.
According to the Congress, the complaint in Hyderabad remains at a preliminary stage and no court has yet taken cognisance of the allegations. The party contends that merely receiving a notice before cognisance is taken does not create a criminal case that must be mandatorily disclosed in an election affidavit.
Congress leaders maintain that the legal requirement to disclose criminal cases arises only after a competent court has formally taken cognisance and proceedings have progressed beyond the preliminary stage. From this perspective, they argue that Natarajan’s affidavit was neither false nor incomplete.
BJP Relies on Supreme Court Guidelines
The BJP adopted a contrary position during the scrutiny proceedings. Party representatives argued that the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised the importance of full disclosure by election candidates in order to ensure transparency and informed voting.
According to the BJP, the disclosure regime is intended to provide voters with complete information regarding a candidate’s legal and criminal background. The party argued before the Returning Officer that Natarajan ought to have disclosed the Hyderabad proceedings regardless of whether cognisance had been formally taken.
In the BJP’s view, the omission amounted to a violation of the disclosure obligations evolved through judicial precedents and election regulations. The party therefore urged the Returning Officer to reject the nomination, a request that was ultimately accepted.
Matter Reaches the Supreme Court
Aggrieved by the decision, Natarajan has now approached the Supreme Court seeking urgent relief. The petition is expected to raise important questions concerning the interpretation of election disclosure requirements and the legal meaning of a “pending criminal case.”
The apex court may be called upon to determine whether a pre-cognisance notice issued in connection with a private complaint creates an obligation for disclosure in Form 26. The outcome could have implications extending beyond the present election, as it may clarify the legal threshold for candidate disclosures in future electoral contests. Given the proximity of the polling date, the matter is likely to be treated with urgency.
The challenge mounted by Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan before the Supreme Court has transformed a routine Rajya Sabha election into a significant legal controversy involving electoral transparency and candidate disclosure norms.
At the heart of the dispute lies a fundamental question: whether a pre-cognisance notice issued in connection with a private complaint constitutes a pending criminal case that must be disclosed in an election affidavit. While the BJP maintains that complete transparency required disclosure of the Hyderabad proceedings, the Congress argues that no criminal case legally exists until a court takes cognisance.
With polling scheduled for June 18 and the rejection effectively removing Congress from the contest for one of the seats, the Supreme Court’s decision could have immediate electoral consequences as well as long-term implications for election law jurisprudence in India.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE