Supreme Court dismisses Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s plea against RS nomination rejection

Bench: The requirement of submitting is provided under Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961. Rule 4A provides that the candidate or his proposal, as the case may be, shall, at the time of delivering to the returning officer, the nomination paper under sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act, also deliver to him an affidavit shown by the candidate before a magistrate of the first class or a notary in Form 26. Form 26 contains different nature of information which a candidate is required to disclose or reveal in his affidavit.

According to the learned counsel representing the respondents, the petitioner was required to disclose the information about all pending criminal cases at whatever stage it is pending before any court. It is not required that only such cases will be disclosed wherein cognisance has been taken or charges have been framed. First of all, it is submitted that any violation of any non-clean disclosure which is otherwise warranted under Clause 5 of Form 26 would entail rejection of the nomination and the returning officer has not committed any error of law.

Bench is recording the submissions of the counsels

Bench dictates order

Singhvi: Your lordship should not allow this injustice to go on

Singhvi: Form 26 cannot override a section. Form 26 doesn’t ask for anything of this sort.

Bench: Mr Mehta whom are you representing?

SG Mehta: I am representing the state of Madhya Pradesh

Bench: We will be first deciding whether we can entertain at this stage

Rohatgi: This lady knew that this was the pending case and therefore there is a deliberate suppression in the affidavit

Naidu reads Section 53 of the RP Act

Naidu refers to the relevant provision in the Representation of People Act

Naidu begins arguments

Rohatgi reads relevant judgments

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appears for contesting candidate.

Rohatgi: Right to contest an election a statutory right not a findamental right

Singhvi: If i will participate I will win or loose....I beesech my lord as the highest court of the land to do justice

Singhvi: This matter requires justice to be done

Singhvi: Here is a woman seeking the right to stand in election not win it.

Bench: We have been saying time and again...if nomination is rejected, the only remedy is election petition

Bench: The whole difficulty is that if we allow the writ petition, then there will be splitting of the jurisdiction of the powers under 329

Singhvi: RO deserves to be sacked. Malafide is the mildest word for him

Singhvi: She will only fight but you excluded her at the threshold. Look at the conduct, EC is silent. Mylords listed it today and they declared the results yesterday.

Singhvi: There is no charges framed, why should she disclose? If there is a criminal case pending, she would disclose as candidate.

Singhvi: I have constitutional bench judgements which cover me

Singhvi: Incident of 2022. Made AICC in charge in 2025

Singhvi: If level playing field becomes unlevelled, there won’t be any fair elections in the country.

Singhvi: Complaint not against me

Singhvi: The order passed by the returning officer is bizarre

Singhvi: Section requires charges to be framed

Singhvi: Summons is not enough, cognizance is not enough

Singhvi: Its a private complaint

Singhvi reads the relevant law about nomination.

Singhvi: Allow me 5 mins to show something shocking if your lordship's conscience is not shocked I am out

Hearing begins

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi is appearing for Meenakshi Natarajan and Election Commission of India is represented by senior advocate DS Naidu

A bench of Justices P K Mishra and A S Chandurkar will shortly hear the plea filed by Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the cancellation of her nomination to the Rajya Sabha.