Supreme Court dismisses Meenakshi Natarajan's plea against RS nomination rejection
Supreme Court dismisses Meenakshi Natarajan's plea against RS nomination rejection
M.U.H
12/06/202624
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan's plea challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh, holding that courts cannot interrupt an ongoing election process and that her remedy lies in filing an election petition.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S Chandurkar held that the settled legal position bars judicial interference during the conduct of elections and rejected Natarajan's attempt to invoke the court's jurisdiction at this stage.
The court noted that the Returning Officer had rejected Natarajan's nomination on the ground that she had filed an incomplete Form 26 affidavit and failed to disclose a pending complaint case against her.
The Returning Officer's order also recorded that Natarajan had filed written submissions in the complaint proceedings and therefore had knowledge of the case.
The bench further noted that Natarajan had approached the Election Commission against the Returning Officer's decision and had filed a written representation.
She had also argued her case in person before the full Election Commission on June 10, but no order was passed on her representation.
Appearing for Natarajan, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the bar under Article 329(b) of the Constitution was not attracted because the petition sought to ensure a fair and transparent election process and was not intended to obstruct the election.
He contended that the rejection of the nomination was ex facie illegal as neither cognisance had been taken nor charges framed in the complaint case that formed the basis of the dispute.
Singhvi relied on judgments including Mohinder Singh Gill and Ashok Kumar to argue that constitutional courts could intervene in exceptional circumstances where such intervention would aid, rather than hinder, the electoral process.
The plea was opposed by the Election Commission, the returned candidate and other respondents, who argued that the right to contest an election is a statutory right and that the settled legal position is that a rejected candidate's remedy lies only through an election petition. They also argued that Form 26 requires disclosure of all pending criminal cases and that neither Article 32 nor Article 226 can be invoked to challenge a nomination rejection during an ongoing election.
The Supreme Court observed that disclosure requirements are governed by statutory provisions and Rule 4A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, which requires candidates to file an affidavit on Form 26 containing prescribed information.
Relying on the landmark Ponnuswami judgment and subsequent precedents, the bench said the principle against judicial interference in the election process has consistently been followed whenever parties have sought to challenge steps taken during the conduct of elections.
The court specifically rejected Singhvi's argument that courts should intervene where the rejection of a nomination appears glaringly illegal.
The bench held that accepting such a contention would require courts to create a distinction between "glaring" and other cases of nomination rejection, a principle not contemplated under the constitutional scheme governing elections.
It further observed that permitting judicial intervention in some nomination-rejection cases while directing others to pursue election petitions would amount to reading into the Constitution an exception that does not exist.
Dismissing the plea, the court said candidates whose nominations are rejected must ordinarily pursue the remedy of an election petition after the election process concludes. It also clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the present proceedings and would not prejudice any election petition that Natarajan may choose to file in the future.
Meenakshi Natarajan has rejected the charge that she concealed information in Form 26 of her Rajya Sabha nomination papers. Speaking to reporters, she also alleged that the Election Commission was compromised.
Natarajan said Form 26 seeks details such as a candidate's political affiliation, electoral roll particulars, contact information, PAN and income tax details, assets and liabilities, pending criminal cases, and criminal convictions.
According to her, the controversy stems from the sections relating to pending criminal cases and convictions. She maintained that she had correctly stated in the form that neither applied to her, as there was only a legal notice against her and no court had taken cognisance of the matter.
"There was no column in Form 26 requiring the disclosure of a private complaint," Natarajan said, adding that had such a requirement existed, she would have furnished the information.
She asserted that there was neither any deficiency in her nomination papers nor any concealment of information. "Whatever information was sought under Form 26 was duly provided," she said.
Following the ruling on her Rajya Sabha nomination, a visibly upset Natarajan told reporters, "We all know the Election Commission's stance. I do not wish to comment on the Supreme Court."
