Today, On 12th June, The Supreme Court dismissed Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s plea challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh. The Court declined to interfere at this stage but granted her liberty to pursue an election petition in accordance with law.
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Congress member Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha candidature from Madhya Pradesh.
The Court granted her liberty to raise the challenge by filing an election petition under the Representation of the People Act.
A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice AS Chandurkar declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, citing the constitutional bar under Article 329.
The writ petition was therefore dismissed as non-maintainable.
Earlier, Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear on Friday a petition filed by Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh.
Today, The bench also rejected the petitioner’s argument that Article 32 can be invoked to cure glaring and manifest errors in the rejection of nomination.
Natarajan has sought judicial intervention against the decision, bringing the nomination dispute before the apex court for urgent consideration.
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.
Additionally, 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.
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.
Case Title: MEENAKSHI NATARAJAN Vs ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 766/2026 Diary No. 36330 / 2026
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE