SC refuses to stall MP Rajya Sabha poll process, lists Meenakshi Natarajan’s plea for Friday

THe sublime margaret court on th refused to hold the on-going electoral process for the Rajya Sabha elections from Madhya Pradesh, even as it agreed to hear on Friday a plea by Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the rejection of her nomination papers.A bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S Chandurkar declined to pass any interim order preventing the declaration of the election result, observing that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘Election Commission of India vs Ashok Kumar (2000)’ was clear that courts should ordinarily refrain from intervening once the electoral process has commenced.“Sorry, we cannot. We are posting it tomorrow, subject to clearance of all defects,” the bench told senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for Natarajan and sought an urgent interim order restraining authorities from declaring the result.The court’s order came amid concerns raised by the Congress that Thursday was the last date for withdrawal of nominations and that, with Natarajan’s candidature having been rejected, BJP candidates could be declared elected unopposed once the withdrawal deadline expired.Seeking urgent intervention, Singhvi told the bench that the matter involved a serious legal issue concerning disclosure requirements under Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act. Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 deals with the right of voters to know the criminal antecedents of candidates contesting elections.“My nomination has been rejected even though there is no cognisance taken by the court. How can they do this?” Singhvi submitted. He argued that the alleged criminal proceedings relied upon to reject Natarajan’s nomination had not progressed to the stage where a court had taken cognisance of the complaint.“Today is the last day of withdrawal. They are technically entitled to declare the result after the deadline to withdraw nomination ends later today because it would be unopposed,” said Singhvi, requesting that the court at least direct the authorities not to declare the result till the matter was heard.Appearing for BJP leaders, who had objected to Natarajan’s nomination before the returning officer, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi opposed the mentioning itself. “I appear for the objector and I have not been made a party. I oppose this mentioning,” Rohatgi told the court.Senior advocate DS Naidu, appearing for the Election Commission of India (ECI), submitted that the petition papers had not yet been served on the Commission and questioned the maintainability of the plea. “Papers are not even served on us and the remedy lies elsewhere, not here,” Naidu argued.The bench, however, reiterated that the legal position governing judicial interference in electoral matters was settled.“The law is settled in the Ashok Kumar case. Once the election process is underway, courts cannot ordinarily intervene,” observed the bench.While declining interim relief, the court agreed to list the matter for hearing on Friday.Natarajan, the Congress’ sole candidate for one of the three Rajya Sabha seats from Madhya Pradesh, moved the Supreme Court challenging a June 9 order of returning officer and Madhya Pradesh assembly principal secretary Arvind Sharma rejecting her nomination.Her candidature was rejected after BJP Rajya Sabha candidate Mahesh Kewat and BJP state general secretary Rahul Kothari objected to her nomination, alleging that she had failed to disclose details of a criminal case pending before a Hyderabad court in her election affidavit.The returning officer accepted the objection and held that Natarajan’s affidavit was incomplete because it did not disclose a notice issued to her by a Hyderabad court in October 2025.According to the June 9 order, Natarajan had responded to the court notice but omitted to mention the proceedings in Form 26 submitted along with her nomination papers.The Congress has strongly contested the decision, maintaining that the Hyderabad proceedings had not reached the stage of cognisance and therefore did not constitute a pending criminal case requiring disclosure.A delegation of senior Congress leaders, including KC Venugopal, Jairam Ramesh, Singhvi, Vivek Tankha, Randeep Surjewala, Bhupesh Baghel and Deepa Dasmunshi, met the Election Commission on Wednesday seeking reversal of the rejection order.The party has argued that Natarajan was merely a respondent in the proceedings and not an accused, and that no FIR had followed her response to the complaint. According to the Congress, a pre-cognisance notice cannot be treated as a pending criminal case for the purpose of disclosure requirements under election law.The dispute centres around the interpretation of the disclosure obligations imposed on candidates and the scope of the returning officer’s powers under Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, which governs scrutiny of nomination papers.Under Section 36(2), a returning officer may reject a nomination only on specified grounds, including non-compliance with statutory requirements or disqualification of the candidate. Section 36(4) bars rejection on account of defects that are not of a substantial character.