Meenakshi Natarajan, Congress Leader.
Meenakshi Natarajan Rajya Sabha Election Supreme Court Hearing News: In a significant legal blow to the opposition, the Supreme Court of India on Friday dismissed a petition filed by senior Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan. The plea challenged the rejection of her nomination papers for the Rajya Sabha elections from Madhya Pradesh.
A vacation bench comprising Justice P.K. Mishra and Justice A.S. Chandurkar anchored its decision in firmly established constitutional law. The top court ruled that judiciary-led interventions cannot disrupt an ongoing electoral process, clarifying that the petitioner’s proper legal recourse lies exclusively in filing a post-election petition.
The ruling effectively seals the electoral outcome in Madhya Pradesh, where all three Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidates—including Mahesh Kewat—were declared elected unopposed following the disqualification of Natarajan’s candidacy.
The Mandate of Article 329(b)
The basis of the Supreme Court’s dismissal rested on the constitutional boundaries governing Indian elections. Delivering the order, the bench noted that the legal framework concerning election-related disputes remains fully settled: once the electoral machinery is set in motion, ordinary writ jurisdictions are paused.
“Whenever an attempt has been made to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32, or that of the High Courts under Article 226, during the process of elections, this Court has repeatedly declined interference, having regard to the constitutional mandate contained in Article 329(b) of the Constitution,” the Bench observed.
The political and legal firestorm trace back to June 9, when Arvind Sharma, the Returning Officer (RO) and Madhya Pradesh Assembly Principal Secretary, officially disqualified Natarajan’s nomination.
The disqualification followed heavy objections raised by BJP leaders, including party state general secretary Rahul Kothari and Rajya Sabha candidate Mahesh Kewat. The ruling party asserted that Natarajan had intentionally suppressed information in Form 26—the mandatory affidavit detailing an aspiring candidate’s assets, liabilities, and pending legal cases.
Specifically, the BJP pointed out a pending private complaint case in a Hyderabad court relating to a 2022 incident in Telangana, a state where Natarajan had previously served as the All India Congress Committee (AICC) in-charge.
The complainant, a local worker, alleged sexual harassment and intimidation against another Congress leader and arrayed Natarajan as an accused for her alleged failure to take internal administrative action on the matter.
According to the RO’s formal order, Natarajan had responded to a notice issued by the Hyderabad court in October 2025, proving she had active knowledge of the case, yet left the pending criminal cases section blank on her nomination papers. The RO deemed the affidavit incomplete, invalidating her run.
Form 26 and the Question of “Pending” Cases
Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Supreme Court of India.
The courtroom witnessed a sharp jurisprudential debate over what legally constitutes a “pending criminal case” requiring public disclosure.
Dr. Singhvi argued that the RO’s interpretation of Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, was legally unsustainable. He maintained that no actual criminal case existed against Natarajan in the eyes of the law because the Hyderabad magistrate had merely issued a pre-cognizance notice and had not yet officially taken cognizance or framed charges.
Countering the Congress’s stance, Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi and D.S. Naidu, appearing for the BJP candidates and the Election Commission respectively, argued that the disclosure mandate is absolute. They contended that Form 26 requires a blanket disclosure of all ongoing legal proceedings involving a candidate, regardless of whether charges have been officially framed.
Furthermore, Rohatgi noted that the right to contest an election is a statutory privilege rather than a fundamental right, meaning a writ petition under Article 32 to enforce fundamental rights was fundamentally unmaintainable in this context.
Justice AS Chandurkar, Supreme Court of India.
Though Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh to emphasize the “seminal legal importance” of how election laws are interpreted, the court declined to allow the state’s active intervention, ruling the local government had no direct stake in the parliamentary election process.
While the Supreme Court clarified that its observations were strictly limited to determining the maintainability of the immediate writ petition—leaving Natarajan entirely free to mount a full challenge via an election petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the future—the immediate political reality remains unchangeable.
With her plea rejected, the Congress loses a critical seat opportunity in the upper house, leaving the ruling party to secure their legislative positions unchallenged, while leaving the opposition to litigate procedural fairness long after the ballots have been cast.
Don’t Miss: High Court Reins in Prayagraj Police Commissionerate After Patterns of Illegal Detentions Exposed
Don’t Miss: Explained: Why a Hindu Widow Cannot Sell Inherited Property Under ‘Legal Necessity’ Anymore
