Supreme Court dismisses Meenakshi Natarajan's plea against RS nomination rejection
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan's plea challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh, holding that courts
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan's plea challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh, holding that courts cannot interrupt an ongoing election process and that her remedy lies in filing an election petition. A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S Chandurkar held that the settled legal position bars judicial interference during the conduct of elections and rejected Natarajan's attempt to invoke the court's jurisdiction at this stage. Read Full Story The court noted that the Returning Officer had rejected Natarajan's nomination on the ground that she had filed an incomplete Form 26 affidavit and failed to disclose a pending complaint case against her. The Returning Officer's order also recorded that Natarajan had filed written submissions in the complaint proceedings and therefore had knowledge of the case. The bench further noted that Natarajan had approached the Election Commission against the Returning Officer's decision and had filed a written representation. She had also argued her case in person before the full Election Commission on June 10, but no order was passed on her representation. Appearing for Natarajan, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the bar under Article 329(b) of the Constitution was not attracted because the petition sought to ensure a fair and transparent election process and was not intended to obstruct the election.
He contended that the rejection of the nomination was ex facie illegal as neither cognisance had been taken nor charges framed in the complaint case that formed the basis of the dispute. Singhvi relied on judgments including Mohinder Singh Gill and Ashok Kumar to argue that constitutional courts could intervene in exceptional circumstances where such intervention would aid, rather than hinder, the electoral process. The plea was opposed by the Election Commission, the returned candidate and other respondents, who argued that the right to contest an election is a statutory right and that the settled legal position is that a rejected candidate's remedy lies only through an election petition. They also argued that Form 26 requires disclosure of all pending criminal cases and that neither Article 32 nor Article 226 can be invoked to challenge a nomination rejection during an ongoing election. The Supreme Court observed that disclosure requirements are governed by statutory provisions and Rule 4A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, which requires candidates to file an affidavit on Form 26 containing prescribed information. Relying on the landmark Ponnuswami judgment and subsequent precedents, the bench said the principle against judicial interference in the election process has consistently been followed whenever parties have sought to challenge steps taken during the conduct of elections.
The BriefWire