Supreme Court Dismisses Congress Leader’s Plea
On Friday, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition filed by Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan, challenging the rejection of her nomination for the Rajya Sabha elections. The decision was delivered by a bench comprising Justice PK Mishra and Justice AS Chandurkar, who emphasized that election-related disputes are traditionally not entertained once the election process has commenced.
In their ruling, the bench highlighted the constitutional provisions, specifically Article 329(b) of the Constitution, which restricts judicial intervention during the election process. The bench stated, “Whenever an attempt has been made to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32, or that of the High Courts under Article 226, during the process of elections, this Court has repeatedly declined interference, having regard to the constitutional mandate contained in Article 329(b) of the Constitution.”
No Grounds for Judicial Intervention
The court further dismissed arguments suggesting that when a nomination rejection is evidently illegal or arbitrary, judicial intervention should be warranted. The bench clarified that no such distinction exists within Article 329(b), and any deviation from this settled constitutional stance would be inappropriate.
“To accept the petitioner’s submission would amount to reading into the constitutional scheme an exception which has not been provided by the Constitution itself,” the bench added, reinforcing their decision to dismiss the plea.
Details of the Candidature Rejection
Natarajan’s candidature was rejected by the returning officer and Madhya Pradesh assembly principal secretary, Arvind Sharma, based on objections raised by BJP leaders, including Rajya Sabha candidate Mahesh Kewat and state general secretary Rahul Kothari. They argued that Natarajan failed to disclose details of a pending case in Hyderabad in her election affidavit.
More Read
The returning officer determined that Natarajan’s affidavit was incomplete, as it did not mention a notice from a Hyderabad court, resulting in the rejection of her candidature on June 9.
Arguments by Legal Representatives
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Natarajan, contended that the rejection was arbitrary. He argued that no formal charges had been framed against Natarajan, and thus, there was no obligation under Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to disclose the pending case. Singhvi urged the court to intervene, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal processes in electoral matters.
On the other hand, Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi and Dama Seshadri Naidu, representing the respondents, argued that the petition under Article 32 was not maintainable since the right to contest elections is a statutory, not a fundamental, right. They stressed that all pending cases must be disclosed, regardless of their stage.
More Read
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh, was denied intervention by the court, which stated that the state had no role in the election proceedings.
