SC cites Art 329, dismisses Natarajan’s petition against RS nomination rejection

THe sublime margaret court on fri dismissed u.s. Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s petition thought-provoking the rejection of her nomination for the Rajya Sabha elections in Madhya Pradesh on Tuesday, saying Article 329 of the Constitution bars the interference of courts in electoral matters. It said an election petition is the only remedy in such cases.A bench of justices PK Mishra and AS Chandurkar refused to make an exception for Natarajan. It added that its order rejecting the petition will not affect arguments Natarajan or anyone on her behalf makes when they file an election petition in the high court.Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for Natarajan, described the returning officer’s June 9 order, citing the omission of a Hyderabad court’s summons for the nomination rejection, as bizarre. He said it was a glaring case as the Representation of the People Act requires disclosure of cases in which a candidate is convicted, or charges are framed. Singhvi argued that the Hyderabad court is yet to take cognisance of the complaint in the case and only sought Natarajan’s response at the pre-cognisance stage.The court cited its decisions in election-related cases and said it has refused to invoke its writ jurisdiction in view of Article 329. “We are afraid that any such interpretation that, in some cases, the court may interfere where a candidate’s nomination paper is wrongly rejected, while leaving some others to file an election petition, cannot be accepted. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed.”Singhvi said the court has the power to interfere where there is a patent error. “This court is the sentinel on the qui vive [alert] which seeks to guard fundamental rights...this is a candidate who is only seeking to stand for elections.”On Thursday, the court refused to interfere and questioned the maintainability of the petition, citing the norm that once the election process has begun, courts will not interfere, when Singhvi mentioned the matter for urgent hearing.The bench asked Singhvi to show one judgment, where, after a nomination had been rejected, the court accepted it. Singhvi asked whether the court would uphold a perverse order that obstructs one from standing in an election and renders it a non-election. “This is bizarre how the returning officer has acted arbitrarily and disturbed the level playing field.”The court’s refusal to interfere on Thursday, the last date for withdrawal of nomination, prompted the Election Commission of India (ECI) to declare Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Mahesh Kewat elected unopposed. Natarajan’s nomination was rejected on Kewat’s complaint.Singhvi argued the ECI should not have declared results when the matter was pending in court. “The ECI is custodian of a constitutional duty. We argued before the ECI on June 10, and the ECI has remained silent in the matter of an election, which is time-specific.”Solicitor general Tushar Mehta appeared for the Madhya Pradesh government, saying the state would like to assist the court on the issue of whether a candidate must disclose all pending cases in the nomination form, even as Singhvi questioned its role in an election dispute between his client and the ECI.The state, in its application for intervention, said the matter raises important questions of law and legal issues of seminal importance pertaining to the interpretation and application of election laws, the determination of which may have a bearing on the legal framework governing the electoral process.Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Kewat, said the right to contest an election is not fundamental but statutory. “Natarajan’s writ petition seeking enforcement of her fundamental rights is not maintainable.”He said Natarajan was required to give information on all pending cases in a Form 26 affidavit attached to her nomination form. He added her nomination was rightly rejected under the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, since she did not disclose the Hyderabad case.The ECI backed the argument on the requirement under Form 26. It said that the Supreme Court’s judgments say all election disputes have to be decided in election petitions.In her petition, Natarajan said the case before the Hyderabad court related to a molestation complaint against a Congress worker. Nataraj was arrayed as an accused, with the complainant alleging that she failed to take action on her 2022 complaint as Congress’s Telangana in charge.