The controversy surrounding Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan's rejected Rajya Sabha nomination has taken a dramatic turn, with Telangana Police stating that no criminal case has been registered against her in the state.
The revelation raises fresh questions about the basis on which returning officer A.P. Singh rejected Natarajan's nomination in Madhya Pradesh on Tuesday, citing non-disclosure of a pending case in her Form 26 affidavit. The officer reportedly concluded that she had filed an "incomplete affidavit" and had "concealed material facts" relating to a case pending before a court.
Yet, after spending an entire day tracing the alleged case, Telangana Police said the only FIR they could locate was FIR No. 209/2022 — and Natarajan's name was not mentioned in it. THE WEEK has accessed the private complaint and the FIR copy.
The BJP, which aggressively targeted the Congress leader after the rejection, has so far not made public any FIR or court document showing that Natarajan is an accused in a criminal case in Telangana. Party leaders repeatedly referred to a "criminal case" pending against her in Telangana, a charge that quickly gained traction and was seen by Congress leaders as an attempt to embarrass Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy.
As details emerge, however, the episode is beginning to resemble a theatre of the absurd.
The “criminal case” stems from a complaint filed by a former Telugu Desam Party woman corporator. She alleged that a Congress leader from Narayanpet maintained a relationship with her and later refused to marry her because she belonged to the Backwards Class. In her complaint, she stated that she had brought the issue to the attention of TPCC president Mahesh Kumar Goud and Telangana Congress in-charge Meenakshi Natarajan, but no action was taken. She further alleged that the leader continued to enjoy political patronage and that she faced intimidation.
According to Telangana Police, however, these allegations do not translate into a criminal case against Natarajan.
"It was a private complaint, and the court is yet to take cognisance of the case. There was no criminal case registered against Meenakshi Natarajan," K. Shilpavallii, deputy superintendent of police, Hyderabad, told THE WEEK. She said the matter was neither criminal in nature nor did the police records show any FIR in which Natarajan is named as an accused.
Shilpavalli said police officials worked with court authorities throughout the day to identify any possible "criminal case". However, she said, the only related FIR they found was No. 209/2022, which does not mention Natarajan.
The developments have prompted legal experts and former officials to question whether the RO abused the quasi-judicial power of scrutiny during the nomination process.
"The Election Commission's role is to facilitate participation of as many candidates as possible and not to eliminate candidates on doubtful grounds," a retired senior bureaucrat told THE WEEK. "A returning officer conducts only a summary inquiry. He decides on the basis of the documents placed before him and cannot conduct a field investigation. If he believed that a criminal case had been concealed, he should have clearly identified the specific case and the documents establishing such concealment."
The former official said a rejection order carrying such serious consequences should be supported by clear documentary evidence, such as a copy of the FIR, rather than on assumptions or unverified claims.
The legal framework governing candidate disclosures appears equally clear. Under Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and Rule 4A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, candidates are required to disclose criminal cases that fall within prescribed categories.
If the BJP's allegation is correct, there should be a clearly identifiable criminal case pending against Natarajan in Telangana. So far, no such document has been produced publicly. The EC has also not issued any detailed explanation supporting the rejection. Instead, it met a Congress delegation in New Delhi on Wednesday.
Following the meeting with the EC, senior Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the entire controversy stemmed from a notice issued on a private complaint. "All that Ms Natarajan received was a notice from a court on a private complaint asking why cognisance should not be taken," Singhvi told reporters. He said the RO had erred and demanded that the EC withdraw the order.
Congress leaders in Telangana have accused the Election Commission of allowing ambiguity to cloud the issue. "The order has damaged the credibility of a constitutional institution," Congress MLC Addanki Dayakar told THE WEEK. "The BJP and the Election Commission appeared eager to create an impression irrespective of the facts. That is deeply concerning."
Chief Minister Revanth Reddy was among the first to push back against the allegations. On Tuesday, immediately after the order was passed, he asserted that no criminal case was pending against Natarajan anywhere in Telangana. Following the controversy, state police officials undertook a fresh verification exercise. Their search yielded only the FIR against the Narayanpet Congress leader — not against Natarajan.
The question that needs to be answered now is: where is the evidence in the criminal case?
Given the political stakes involved, any such FIR or court record would almost certainly have surfaced by now. The BJP has every incentive to place such evidence in the public domain. Yet no document establishing Natarajan's status as an accused in a criminal case has been shared with the media.
Even if an FIR for a criminal case is filed now, the EC has no power to take cognisance of it. The RO could determine the eligibility or ineligibility only during the scrutiny process, based on the available documentary evidence. Clearly, the RO mentioned no specific FIR and did not prove that his rejection was based on the omission of that specific case. This could be a clear abuse of power by the RO.
