The Supreme Court will hear on Friday a writ petition filed by Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the rejection of her nomination for the Rajya Sabha elections from Madhya Pradesh.
The matter was orally mentioned on Thursday before the Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice AS Chandurkar by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Natarajan. The Court agreed to list the case for hearing on June 12.
Appearing for Natarajan, Singhvi urged the Court to take up the matter immediately, pointing out that the last date for withdrawal of nominations was Thursday. He also sought interim relief to prevent the declaration of election results pending adjudication of the dispute.
Singhvi submitted that Natarajan’s nomination was rejected by the Returning Officer (RO) on the ground that she had failed to disclose a criminal case. He argued that the basis relied upon by the RO was legally unsustainable because no cognisance had been taken by the competent court in the matter.
According to him, Natarajan had merely received a pre-cognisance notice under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which requires an accused to be heard before cognisance is taken on a private complaint.
Referring to Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, Singhvi contended that candidates were required to disclose only those criminal cases in which a court had taken cognisance. Since cognisance had not been taken in the present case, there was no legal obligation upon Natarajan to disclose the proceedings in her nomination papers, he argued.
During the hearing, Justice Mishra questioned the maintainability of the writ petition, observing that courts ordinarily refrain from interfering in election matters at an interim stage. In response, Singhvi submitted that constitutional courts could exercise jurisdiction in exceptional cases involving manifest illegality or glaring errors in the electoral process.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the rival candidate, opposed the plea and raised objections regarding its maintainability. Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, representing the Election Commission of India (ECI), also questioned whether the petition was maintainable in view of settled principles governing election disputes.
Natarajan’s candidature was reportedly rejected on June 9 by the Returning Officer and Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly Principal Secretary Arvind Sharma following objections raised by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders, including Rajya Sabha candidate Mahesh Kewat and the party’s State General Secretary Rahul Kothari.
The dispute centres on an alleged failure by Natarajan to disclose details of proceedings pending before a court in Hyderabad in her nomination affidavit filed in Form 26. According to the Returning Officer’s order, Natarajan had received and responded to a notice issued by a Hyderabad court in October 2025. However, details of the matter were not disclosed in the affidavit accompanying her nomination papers.
The RO concluded that the affidavit was incomplete due to the omission and held that the non-disclosure amounted to a violation of the mandatory disclosure requirements governing election nominations. On this basis, her nomination was rejected.
The proceeding arises from a private complaint bearing No. 4472 of 2025 filed before the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, by former Congress worker A Srilatha. Natarajan has been arrayed as Respondent No. 4 in the complaint. The complainant has reportedly levelled allegations of molestation against the principal accused, who has been named as Respondent No. 1, and also accused Natarajan and certain other Congress functionaries of failing to take action despite repeated complaints. Natarajan presently serves as the All India Congress Committee (AICC)’s in-charge for Telangana.
According to the material placed before the Court, Natarajan received a notice under Section 223 of the BNSS. Under the statutory scheme, a Magistrate considering a private complaint was required to hear the proposed accused before deciding whether cognisance should be taken. The notice was therefore issued to enable Natarajan to explain why cognisance ought not to be taken against her.
The Indian National Congress has also approached the ECI, challenging the rejection of Natarajan’s candidature. The party maintained that the statutory disclosure requirement under Section 33A of the RPA applied to criminal cases in which charges had been framed for offences punishable with imprisonment of two years or more, adding that the proceedings against Natarajan had not reached that stage.
The party further asserted that Natarajan had only been served with a notice to appear before the Magistrate at a pre-cognisance stage and that no criminal proceedings had formally commenced against her in the eyes of the law.
According to the Congress, the Returning Officer erred in treating the pre-cognisance proceedings as a disclosable criminal case and rejecting Natarajan’s nomination despite the absence of any judicial order taking cognisance of the complaint. It contended that the rejection was contrary to the disclosure requirements prescribed under the election law and, therefore, liable to be set aside.
The post Supreme Court to hear Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan plea challenging rejection of Rajya Sabha nomination on June 12 appeared first on India Legal.