More Coverage
Twitter Coverage
JOIN SATYAAGRAH SOCIAL MEDIA
Supreme Court humiliatingly snubs Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s desperate plea over her botched Rajya Sabha nomination in Madhya Pradesh, triggering chaotic protests and embarrassing public drama at Delhi headquarters
In a significant legal development regarding the Rajya Sabha elections from Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court of India on Friday dismissed a writ petition filed by Senior Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan. The petition challenged the rejection of her nomination papers by the Returning Officer. Maintaining the constitutional boundary governing ongoing elections, the country's highest court clarified that it cannot halt or disrupt an active electoral process, ruling instead that her appropriate legal option is to file a formal election petition under the Representation of the People Act.
|
The judicial decision came from a two-judge bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice A.S. Chandurkar. The bench held that the writ petition was not maintainable because of the explicit constitutional bar established under Article 329 of the Constitution of India. In declining to exercise its judicial jurisdiction under Article 32, the bench strongly emphasized that any intervention at this intermediate stage would actively undermine the rigid legal framework laid down specifically for resolving election disputes. Furthermore, the Court made it clear that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case itself, leaving the core arguments of the dispute open for proper future assessment.
The root of the controversy traces back to June 9, when the Returning Officer officially rejected Natarajan's nomination papers. The rejection was based on the grounds that she had failed to disclose an existing legal complaint filed against her in a Telangana court within her mandatory Form 26 affidavit, despite already having received official court summons regarding the matter.
Representing the Congress leader, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi presented a detailed defense before the bench. Singhvi argued that under Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, a candidate is legally required to disclose criminal matters only in specific scenarios where formal charges have already been framed by a court. He strongly contended that the Telangana complaint was merely at a pre-cognisance stage, making the Returning Officer’s outright rejection of her papers arbitrary and a cause of gross injustice.
|
Providing vital context to the allegations, Singhvi submitted that the underlying complaint actually pertained to allegations of molestation against an entirely different person. Natarajan was named as an accused solely for allegedly failing to take institutional action in her capacity as the All India Congress Committee (AICC) in-charge of Telangana. To demonstrate the flaw in the timing of the complaint, the senior counsel highlighted a clear timeline: Natarajan was officially appointed to the AICC leadership post in 2025, which occurred well after the alleged incident took place in 2022. Based on these facts, he urged the apex court to intervene immediately to protect the democratic ecosystem and ensure a level playing field in the electoral process.
This position was strongly opposed by the respondents. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing on behalf of the rival candidate, asserted that the right to contest an election in India is strictly a statutory right enacted by law, rather than an inherent fundamental right. The respondents placed heavy reliance on the constitutional bar under Article 329, which effectively ousts and removes the jurisdiction of courts under both Article 32 and Article 226 while an active election process is underway. They maintained that the only legally permissible remedy lies in an election petition brought directly before the competent Election Tribunal. Supporting this stance, the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, also appeared in the matter representing the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Adding to the complexity of the situation, the Election Commission of India had already declared the official results on Thursday. Because there were no rival nominations left standing after the scrutiny stage, the commission named the other standing candidates as uncontested winners. When the petitioner argued that the Supreme Court still possessed the power to intervene in cases involving manifest or obvious administrative errors, the bench rejected the premise. The justices observed that allowing such an exception would create a highly inconsistent application of Article 329 and would inevitably lead to a chaotic splitting of jurisdictions between standard writ petitions and formal election petitions.
|
Addressing the specific status of the Telangana case, the court noted that while formal charges have indeed not been framed against Meenakshi Natarajan, a judicial summons had undeniably been issued to her. Highlighting the weight of a summons, Justice Mishra pointed out that a Court issues a summons only after applying its mind to the initial material.
The apex court explicitly stated in its formal order:
“The court has taken cognisance of compliant filed and summons have also been issued for her to appear, therefore the case is pending before the court.”
The court further added that because her written statement had already been filed before the magisterial court, she clearly has full knowledge of the case.
Refusing to deviate from long-standing judicial protocols, the bench stated that the Supreme Court has never intervened in a case involving the rejection of a candidate’s nomination, and they are not going to do that now. Addressing the petitioner directly during the proceedings, the bench of Justices PK Mishra and AS Chandurkar observed:
“However erroneous the decision may be, once a nomination is rejected, the remedy ordinarily lies elsewhere. Is there any judgment of this Court where we have interfered at that stage?”
Delving into the statutory rules governing disclosures, the formal order meticulously detailed the legal framework:
“Section 33A of RoP Act is present hereunder. The requirement of submitting information is provided under rule 4A of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Rule 4A provides that candidate shall at the time of delivering to RO the nomination papers also deliver to him affidavit sworn by the candidate. Form 26A contains the nature of information which a candidate is required to disclose or reveal in his affidavit. Clause 5 of Form 26 provides for the following information at the time of filing of nomination.”
Ultimately, the Supreme Court stated that if the court accepts the argument of the petitioner at this juncture, the basic sanctity of the entire election process would be severely affected. The court concluded that it was not inclined to accept the plea when the law dictates the case should be dealt with as an election petition, and subsequently dismissed the same.
With the final dismissal of this writ petition, the immediate doors of the apex court have closed on the matter. Meenakshi Natarajan must now look to the established electoral remedies provided by the constitution, which allow her to legally pursue her challenge by filing a comprehensive election petition in the high court.
|
Party Faithful Demonstrate in National Capital Following Rejection of Senior Leader’s Electoral Papers
Following the controversial legal battle over the Rajya Sabha elections, intense political unrest shifted directly to the streets of the national capital. A large number of dedicated Congress workers staged a major protest outside the All India Congress Committee headquarters located at 24 Akbar Road in Delhi on Friday. The demonstration was organized to voice fierce opposition against the decision made by the Election Commission of India (ECI) regarding the rejection of senior party leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s nomination papers for the Rajya Sabha seats from Madhya Pradesh.
As the situation intensified, the gathered protesters attempted to launch a peaceful march moving away from the party headquarters and heading towards Rashtrapati Bhavan. Their primary objective was to seek a direct audience with President Droupadi Murmu to raise their profound concerns surrounding the issue. However, their progress was abruptly halted by the Delhi Police. To maintain strict law and order in the sensitive zone, the police authorities had put in place a heavy deployment of personnel alongside massive security barricading outside the Congress headquarters.
The friction at the demonstration site escalated when several prominent, senior Congress leaders decided to take a physical stand. Madhya Pradesh Congress committee chief Jitu Patwari, along with the Leader of Opposition in the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, Umang Singhar, actively climbed over the heavy police barricades. Surrounded by hundreds of supporters, they raised passionate slogans against the functioning of the Election Commission. In an effort to clear the area and control the crowd, the law enforcement authorities subsequently detained some of these key leaders and workers, escorting them away from the scene onto waiting police buses.
While speaking directly to the news agency ANI during the heat of the protest, Madhya Pradesh Leader of Opposition Umang Singhar leveled harsh criticism against the President’s Office for allegedly declining the political party’s formal request for an appointment.
Singhar expressed his deep frustration to the reporters, stating:
“The President is the President of the country and not of any particular political party. The manner in which an email was sent refusing to meet us makes it clear that she is working as an agent of the BJP. Does the President not want to save democracy? Does she not want to stand with the country so that every minister and MP can freely contest elections? Does she not want to stand with the sentiments of the nation? I want to ask this,”
Another prominent voice at the protest site was senior Congress leader Ajay Singh Rahul, who openly questioned the heavy restrictions imposed on the party's democratic right to demonstrate.
He shared the widespread sense of bewilderment among the party rank and file, stating:
“We too are stunned as to what the reason is. The President did not even grant us an appointment. Even if we want to march a short distance, there is a restriction on that as well. Democracy is completely finished; there is no democracy left,” the worker told ANI.
The sentiment that democratic structures were being systemicly dismantled was echoed strongly by another active Congress worker on the ground. He explained that the march was intended to seek an institutional safety net, but felt those avenues were blocked.
The worker stated:
“We were heading to Rashtrapati Bhavan, hoping that we would get justice from the President. But given the way they have effectively hijacked the President, all of us feel that democracy has been murdered in Madhya Pradesh. Everyone wanted to voice their concerns in a peaceful, Gandhian manner, but there is no one willing to listen. Democracy must be saved,”
He further alleged,
“The way the BJP government and the Election Commission have become puppets is truly shameful for the nation.”
The rhetoric among the protesters grew increasingly stark as the afternoon progressed. Highlighting what they see as a pattern of governance failures, another passionate demonstrator drew a grim parallel to other national issues.
The protester noted:
“Earlier, votes were stolen. Then the youth’s jobs were stolen, examination papers were stolen, and today, a Rajya Sabha seat has been stolen in Madhya Pradesh. The day is not far when this entire country will be stolen too.”
|
Party President Accuses Central Administration of Deploying Loyalist Bureaucrats to Subvert Opposition
Stepping directly into the unfolding political storm, All India Congress Committee (AICC) President Mallikarjun Kharge launched a blistering attack on the central government. Kharge alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has intentionally 'planted' loyal officers into highly critical bureaucratic posts across the country for the explicit purpose of destroying both the Congress party and the foundations of Indian democracy. These strong statements followed immediately in the wake of the national row over Meenakshi Natarajan’s disqualified candidature.
Kharge took the opportunity to address the media at Vidhana Soudha, shortly after receiving his official certificate of election as a newly elected Rajya Sabha member representing the state of Karnataka. During his address, he reiterated his firm stance that the initial rejection of Meenakshi Natarajan’s candidature by the state returning officer in Madhya Pradesh was entirely 'illegal'.
The veteran leader did not hold back in assigning ultimate political responsibility for the administrative decision, stating:
“Meenakshi Natarajan's nomination paper being rejected is illegal, immoral, and anti-democratic. The incident could not have happened without PM Modi's instruction. PM Modi is doing this purposefully to destroy the Congress party and to destroy democracy. He is conspiring by placing his people, especially returning officers who are his close supporters, in key positions”, he alleged.
|
Elaborating further on the deep structural concerns within the administration, the AICC President maintained:
“I am not saying that the Prime Minister is doing it himself, but he has placed RSS agents and his loyalists everywhere. Wherever their government exists, they have positioned people who do not follow the law, rules, or regulations. They reject anyone they want arbitrarily”,
To back his claim of institutional bias and arbitrary functioning, Kharge pointed directly to a contrasting case that had occurred in another state, highlighting what he viewed as a glaring double standard in how election rules are being enforced.
He asked the press:
“In Jharkhand, there was a similar issue where two pages in the nomination papers were left blank. The person had not mentioned it. Details of the children mentioned were also not mentioned, but time to rectify it was given. On the other hand, a nomination by Congress is 'arbitrarily' dismissed on the same evening. Is this democracy?”
The Congress chief concluded his critique of the country's autonomous electoral body by pointing out how difficult it has become to question administrative actions without facing immediate political counter-accusations.
He stated:
“This clearly shows that even the Election Commission is not acting impartially. If we say anything, they accuse Congress of criticising things always,”
Amidst the fierce political environment and the national controversy surrounding the Rajya Sabha nominations, Kharge concluded his press briefing on a positive note regarding his own constituency. He extended his heartfelt thanks to the citizens of Karnataka and dedicated Congress party functionaries—expressly mentioning Congress Parliamentary Party (CPP) chairperson Sonia Gandhi—for their unwavering cooperation, ensuring his continuation as one of the longest-serving public representatives in the modern history of the nation.
|
Support Us
Satyagraha was born from the heart of our land, with an undying aim to unveil the true essence of Bharat. It seeks to illuminate the hidden tales of our valiant freedom fighters and the rich chronicles that haven't yet sung their complete melody in the mainstream.
While platforms like NDTV and 'The Wire' effortlessly garner funds under the banner of safeguarding democracy, we at Satyagraha walk a different path. Our strength and resonance come from you. In this journey to weave a stronger Bharat, every little contribution amplifies our voice. Let's come together, contribute as you can, and champion the true spirit of our nation.
 |  |  |
| ICICI Bank of Satyaagrah | Razorpay Bank of Satyaagrah | PayPal Bank of Satyaagrah - For International Payments |
If all above doesn't work, then try the LINK below:
DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text. The website also frequently uses non-commercial images for representational purposes only in line with the article. We are not responsible for the authenticity of such images. If some images have a copyright issue, we request the person/entity to contact us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and we will take the necessary actions to resolve the issue.
