4 min readNew DelhiJun 10, 2026 05:10 PM IST
First published on: Jun 10, 2026 at 05:10 PM IST
The row over the rejection of the nomination of Meenakshi Natarajan, the Congress candidate for the Rajya Sabha elections in Madhya Pradesh, intensified Wednesday, as a party delegation met the Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar, and other commissioners.
The Congress delegation submitted that no court had yet taken cognisance of a private complaint against Natarajan, and that the returning officer’s (RO) order disqualifying her should therefore be withdrawn by the Election Commission of India (ECI). Congress leaders said that if ECI doesn’t pass an order correcting the RO’s mistake by Wednesday evening, the party will approach the court and seek an urgent hearing.
Natarajan’s nomination was rejected after BJP state general secretary Rahul Kothari filed an objection, alleging that she had failed to fully disclose details of a case in the affidavit submitted with her nomination papers.
After giving a “detailed representation” to ECI, Congress MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi said: “An order (RO’s) akin to writing two plus two is equal to seven, not five. Why do I say so? The Election Commission’s own law, the Representation of the People Act, has Section 33A, which requires you to disclose… this is a requirement for disclosure only. You have to disclose only those cases with a punishment of more than two years, and above all, only those cases where charges have been framed. The process of framing charges is a judicial process. A judge frames charges.”
Singhvi said the “private complaint may be baseless, may have no legs to stand on”. “There is no criminal case merely, if I alleged something against somebody else, without a cognisance taken,” he added.
He said that Natarajan’s nomination was rejected “on the non-existence of even cognisance, which means there is no criminal case, which she could have disclosed”. “But you have done it at the first stage, where the section, which I have just read for you, 33A says that after cognisance, if it is taken, there will be an investigation. After investigation, there will be a chargesheet, which is not enough. The section says after the chargesheet, the judge must frame charges; had the judge reached the stage of framing charges, she would have been obliged to disclose,” he said.
He said that the delegation pointed out to the Election Commission that they have a huge reservoir of powers under Article 324.” “It is a constitutional power; it is an uncircumscribed power. It is inherent power; it is power to do justice and power to right wrongs. If an RO improperly throws out a nomination paper… Nobody has to wait to go to court, nobody has to file an election petition and waste 3-4-5-6 years. The main body, which has Article 324, is sitting here, and that reservoir of powers to do corrective justice must be exercised by them immediately; that is what we have asked,” he said.
The senior Congress leader said ECI has sufficient time to take action against the RO’s order. “This is a completely egregious, blatant, patently unlawful, without law order, and it should be set aside immediately, it is our request,” he added.
In her plea, Meenakshi Natarajan said that by rejecting her candidature, the retiring officer acted in complete violation of the letter and spirit of the provisions of The Representation of the People Act, 1951. (Instagram/Meenakshi Natarajan) 
Share
