The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to stay the ongoing electoral process for the Rajya Sabha polls from Madhya Pradesh, even as it agreed to hear on Friday a petition by Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the rejection of her nomination papers.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S Chandorkar refused 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 v. Ashok Kumar (2000) was clear that courts should normally refrain from interfering once the electoral process has begun.
“Sorry, we can’t. We will publish it tomorrow, provided all the defects are removed,” said lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented Natarajan and sought an urgent interim order preventing the authorities from announcing the result.
The court order came amid concerns raised by the Congress that Thursday is the last date for withdrawal of nominations, and that with Natarajan’s nomination rejected, the BJP candidates could be declared elected unopposed once the withdrawal deadline expires.
Seeking urgent intervention, Singhvi told the bench that the matter involved a serious legal issue of disclosure requirements under Section 33A of the Representation of People Act. Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act 1951 addresses the right of voters to know the criminal antecedents of candidates contesting elections.
“My nomination was rejected despite the lack of approval from the court. How can they do this?” Singhvi ft. He said the alleged criminal proceedings relied upon to reject Natarajan’s nomination had not reached the stage where the court took cognizance of the complaint.
“Today is the last day to withdraw. They are technically entitled to announce the result after the deadline for withdrawal of nomination expires later today as there will be no opposition,” Singhvi said, asking the court to at least direct the authorities not to announce the result until the matter is considered.
While appearing before BJP leaders, who had objected to Natarajan’s nomination before the returning officer, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi opposed the same reference. “I represent the objector and have not formed a party. I oppose this reference,” Rohatgi told the court.
Senior advocate DS Naidu, appearing for the Election Commission of India (ECI), submitted that the petition papers were yet to be submitted to the commission and questioned the viability of the petition. “We are not even served papers and the treatment lies elsewhere, not here,” Naidu said.
However, the court confirmed that the legal position governing judicial intervention in electoral matters had been settled.
“The law has been settled in the Ashok Kumar case. Once the electoral process begins, the courts cannot normally interfere,” the bench observed.
Despite denying interim relief, the court agreed to list the matter for hearing on Friday.
Natarajan, the lone Congress candidate for one of the three Rajya Sabha seats from Madhya Pradesh, has filed a complaint in the Supreme Court challenging the June 9 order reinstating Madhya Pradesh Assembly officer and principal secretary Arvind Sharma rejecting her nomination.
Her nomination 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 Natarajan’s affidavit to be incomplete as she did not disclose the notice issued to her by the Hyderabad court in October 2025.
As per the June 9 order, Natarajan responded to the court’s notice but omitted to mention the proceedings in Form 26 filed with her nomination papers.
The Congress strongly objected to the decision, asserting that the Hyderabad proceedings had not reached the stage of realization 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 cancellation of the rejection order.
The party argued that Natarajan was merely a respondent in the proceedings and not an accused, and that the FIR had not followed up on her response to the complaint. According to Congress, a prior knowledge notice cannot be treated as a pending criminal case for the purpose of disclosure requirements under election law.
The dispute centers on 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 the examination of nomination papers.
Under section 36(2), the returning officer may reject a nomination only on specified grounds, including non-compliance with statutory requirements or disqualification of the nominee. Article 36(4) prohibits rejection due to defects that are not of a fundamental nature.
