The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition by Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination papers in Madhya Pradesh, upholding the principle that courts cannot intervene in ongoing election processes. The bench cited Article 329(b) of the Constitution, which mandates that election disputes must be resolved through election petitions after the election is concluded, and rejected arguments that the Returning Officer's decision was arbitrary. Natarajan's nomination was rejected due to alleged non-disclosure of a pending Hyderabad court case in her affidavit, a decision her counsel argued was premature as charges had not been framed. The court, however, maintained that such challenges cannot ordinarily be entertained by constitutional courts during an election and that recognizing exceptions would undermine the constitutional scheme.

The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition by Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination papers in Madhya Pradesh, upholding the principle that courts cannot intervene in ongoing election processes. The bench cited Article 329(b) of the Constitution, which mandates that election disputes must be resolved through election petitions after the election is concluded, and rejected arguments that the Returning Officer's decision was arbitrary. Natarajan's nomination was rejected due to alleged non-disclosure of a pending Hyderabad court case in her affidavit, a decision her counsel argued was premature as charges had not been framed. The court, however, maintained that such challenges cannot ordinarily be entertained by constitutional courts during an election and that recognizing exceptions would undermine the constitutional scheme.

The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition by Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination papers in Madhya Pradesh, upholding the principle that courts cannot intervene in ongoing election processes. The bench cited Article 329(b) of the Constitution, which mandates that election disputes must be resolved through election petitions after the election is concluded, and rejected arguments that the Returning Officer's decision was arbitrary. Natarajan's nomination was rejected due to alleged non-disclosure of a pending Hyderabad court case in her affidavit, a decision her counsel argued was premature as charges had not been framed. The court, however, maintained that such challenges cannot ordinarily be entertained by constitutional courts during an election and that recognizing exceptions would undermine the constitutional scheme.

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the rejection of her nomination papers for the Rajya Sabha elections in Madhya Pradesh, reiterating that courts cannot intervene in election disputes once the electoral process has commenced.

A bench comprising Justices P.K. Mishra and A.S. Chandurkar held that the constitutional scheme governing elections bars judicial interference during an ongoing election process and that aggrieved candidates must seek remedies through election petitions after the election is completed.

"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 ruling came on Natarajan's challenge to the decision of the Returning Officer and Madhya Pradesh Assembly Principal Secretary Arvind Sharma, who rejected her nomination on June 9 following objections raised by BJP leaders, including Rajya Sabha candidate Mahesh Kewat and party state general secretary Rahul Kothari.

The objections centred on Natarajan's alleged failure to disclose details of a case pending before a court in Hyderabad in the affidavit submitted along with her nomination papers. According to the Returning Officer's order, Natarajan had responded to a notice issued by a Hyderabad court in October 2025 but did not mention the matter in Form 26 accompanying her nomination documents. The officer concluded that the affidavit was incomplete and rejected her candidature.

Before the Supreme Court, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Natarajan, argued that the Returning Officer's action was arbitrary and legally unsustainable. He contended that the proceedings in Hyderabad had not reached a stage where mandatory disclosure was required under election law.

Singhvi submitted that although cognisance may have been taken in the matter, charges had not yet been framed and the allegations remained untested.

"The allegations remain to be tested, and the matter is still at a preliminary stage. Therefore, there is no violation of the requirements contained in Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951," he argued.

Seeking judicial intervention, Singhvi maintained that electoral laws should be interpreted in a manner that strengthens democratic participation rather than restricts it.

"Good governance requires that electoral processes be allowed to function according to law. The Election Commission's role is to facilitate elections and not to frustrate them," he submitted.

He further argued that judicial review should aid rather than obstruct democracy.

"Democracy is founded upon plurality. The law should, therefore, be construed in a manner that preserves plurality rather than restricts it," Singhvi told the court.

The bench, however, remained unconvinced and repeatedly referred to settled precedents holding that challenges arising during the election process cannot ordinarily be entertained by constitutional courts.

Justice Mishra asked Singhvi whether there existed any judgment where the Supreme Court had intervened at the stage of rejection of nomination papers during an ongoing election.

"If such a distinction were to be recognised, courts would be required to classify election disputes into two categories, first, those involving allegedly glaring or manifest errors warranting immediate intervention under Articles 32 or 226 and second, those where the aggrieved party must await the remedy of an election petition," the bench said.

Such a distinction, it added, finds no place in Article 329(b) of the Constitution, which limits judicial intervention in election matters.

"To accept the petitioner's submission would amount to reading into the constitutional scheme an exception which has not been provided by the Constitution itself," the court observed.

Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and D.S. Naidu, appearing for the respondents, opposed the petition, arguing that the right to contest elections is a statutory right and not a fundamental right capable of being enforced through Article 32.

They further contended that candidates are obligated to disclose all pending criminal proceedings irrespective of the stage at which those proceedings stand and that disclosure requirements are not confined to cases where charges have been framed.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also appeared on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh. However, the Bench declined to entertain the State's intervention, observing that the State government had no role in the conduct of the election.

Dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that disputes relating to rejection of nomination papers must be raised through an election petition after the completion of the electoral process, preserving the long-established constitutional principle against judicial interruption of elections in progress.

TAGS