The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s plea challenging the rejection of her nomination for the Rajya Sabha elections in Madhya Pradesh on Tuesday, saying Article 329 of the Constitution prohibits interference of courts in electoral matters. She said filing an election petition is the only remedy in such cases.
A bench of Justices PK Mishra and AS Chandorkar refused to make an exception for Natarajan. She added that her order rejecting the petition will not affect the arguments advanced by Natarajan or anyone on her behalf when they file an election petition in the Supreme Court.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for Natarajan, described the returning officer’s June 9 order, citing the omission of summons by the Hyderabad court rejecting the nomination, as strange. He said it was a glaring case because the Representation of the People Act requires disclosure of cases where a candidate is convicted, or charged. The Hyderabad court is yet to take cognizance of the complaint in the case and has sought Natarajan’s response only at the pre-cognizance stage, Singhvi said.
Citing its decisions in election-related cases, the court said it refused to invoke its jurisdiction in light of Article 329. “We fear that any such interpretation, in which the court may intervene, in some cases, when a candidate’s nomination paper is wrongly rejected, while others are left 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 intervene when there is an error in the patent. “This court is the guardian of life [alert] Who seeks to protect basic rights…this is a candidate who only seeks to run for elections.”
On Thursday, the court refused to intervene and questioned the viability of the petition, citing the rule that once the electoral process begins, the courts will not interfere, when Singhvi mentioned the matter for urgent hearing.
The bench asked Singhvi to show one judgement, which the court accepted after rejecting the nomination. Singhvi wondered whether the court would uphold the corrupt order that prevents a person from standing in the election and makes it non-electoral. “It is strange that a returning officer should act so arbitrarily and disturb the level playing field.”
The court’s refusal to intervene on Thursday, the last date to withdraw nomination, prompted the Election Commission of India to declare the BJP’s Mahesh Kewat elected unopposed. Natarajan’s nomination was rejected based on Kewat’s complaint.
Singhvi argued that the Election Commission of India should not have announced the results when the matter was pending in court. “The Election Commission of India is the guardian of a constitutional duty. We argued before the Election Commission of India on June 10, and the Election Commission of India has remained silent on the issue of elections, which is time bound.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Madhya Pradesh government, saying the state was willing to help the court on the issue of whether a candidate should disclose all pending cases in the nomination form, even as Singhvi questioned its role in an election dispute between his client and the Election Commission of India.
The state said in its request for intervention that the matter raises important legal questions and legal issues of great importance related to the interpretation and application of election laws, the identification of which may have an impact on the legal framework governing the electoral process.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who represented Kewat, said the right to contest elections is not fundamental but legal. “Natarajan’s petition seeking enforcement of her fundamental rights is not maintainable.”
He said Natarajan was required to provide information on all pending cases in Form 26 affidavit attached to her nomination form. He added that her nomination had been rightly rejected under the Election Conduct Rules, 1961, as she had not disclosed the Hyderabad issue.
The IEC upheld the argument regarding the requirement under Form 26. It said that the Supreme Court rulings stipulate that all election disputes must be decided in election petitions.
In her petition, Natarajan said that the case before the Hyderabad court relates to a harassment complaint against a Congress member. Nataraj was brought forward as an accused, with the complainant alleging that she failed to take action on her 2022 complaint as Telangana Congress in-charge.
