The Supreme Court will hear Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s plea challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh on Friday.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi mentioned the plea before a bench of Justices P K Mishra and A S Chandurkar, which said it will be listed on Friday, subject to curing of defects, if any. Natarajan’s RS candidature was rejected during scrutiny of nominations by the Returning Officer (RO) on June 9.
Returning Officer Arvind Sharma on Thursday declared the three BJP candidates — Tarun Chugh, Rajneesh Agarwal and Mahesh Kewat — elected unopposed in the biennial elections in Madhya Pradesh. The three BJP nominees visited the Assembly complex in and collected their certificates of victory before displaying them to the media.
Natarajan’s petition said the RO by rejecting her candidature has acted in complete violation of the letter and spirit of the provisions of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (and the rules made thereunder) and has not allowed the elections to be conducted in a free and fair manner.
Seeking an urgent hearing, Singhvi told the bench that Thursday, June 11, is the last date for withdrawal of nominations and the plea may not brook delay till Friday.
He said Section 33A of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 says “in disclosure of the form for a contestant…you must indicate a case which has imprisonment of more than 2 years, plus charges have been framed”.
BJP’s Madhya Pradesh general secretary Rahul Kothari had filed an objection to Natarajan’s candidature with the RO, alleging that she had failed to fully disclose details of a case against her in the affidavit submitted with her nomination papers. Kothari was referring to a private complaint pending before a court in against various individuals.
Pointing out that the matter pertains to the Rajya Sabha elections from Madhya Pradesh, Singhvi said Natarajan did not disclose the case “because there is only a summons, not even cognisance”. He stressed that the stage of framing of charges comes only after cognisance, investigation and filing of a chargesheet, but the “returning officer in a short order disqualified her”.
“Today is the last date of withdrawal. I have no problem arguing it tomorrow. They are technically entitled to declare the results after 4 o’clock today, as it is unopposed… Therefore, if it is coming tomorrow, let them not declare the results. Your Lordships will hear it,” Singhvi said.
Justice Mishra, however, sought to know how the petition was maintainable since the election process had been set in motion. To which, Singhvi said courts can interfere if there is a glaring error, failing which the petitioner will have to wait for many years for a remedy.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for the three BJP Rajya Sabha candidates from Madhya Pradesh, said they were not made parties in the petition and were opposing the mention.
Senior Advocate D S Naidu, who represented the Election Commission, also questioned the maintainability and said the remedy lies elsewhere.
The court finally agreed to list the plea for a hearing on Friday.
The objection to Natarajan’s nomination stems from a criminal case registered in Telangana in 2022, following a complaint filed by a former associate of a senior Congress politician, alleging that she had been subjected to a pattern of abuse, coercion, intimidation and exploitation during the course of a personal relationship spanning several months. This case is currently at the charging consideration stage.
Although Natarajan has not been named in this case, her name figures in a subsequent private complaint filed by the woman before the Hyderabad court in August 2025. Unlike the criminal cases that form the backdrop of the dispute, the private complaint is directed not only at the principal accused but also at a range of Congress office-bearers, legislators and functionaries whom the complainant accuses of shielding influential figures despite repeated complaints and ongoing legal proceedings.
The Congress has contended that it is not a criminal case.
Natarajan’s plea said if the RO’s order is not set-aside or stayed in the interim, “then it will set a dangerous precedent for all future elections in the country”.
It added that the “there is wide disparity in the approach of Returning Officers across different states, i.e., for the petitioner’s nomination form in Madhya Pradesh was rejected on frivolous and erroneous grounds, while for another candidate contesting from Council of States for Jharkhand, the Returning Officer, relied on Section 36 of RoPA, 1951 and allowed the nomination form (despite fatal errors and non-disclosure of assets and interests in companies) on the ground that Returning Officers have limited powers of scrutiny qua Form 26 and its contents”.
The plea said “this disparity in the approach of ROs can be addressed by” the SC as the Election Commission “had not taken any cognisance or action on the complaints of the petitioner and other party members of the petitioner”.
