The Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition from Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan on August 23, 2024, which challenged the rejection of her nomination papers for the Rajya Sabha elections. A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S. Chandurkar ruled that judicial intervention in electoral nomination disputes is barred under Article 329 of the Indian Constitution, directing that such grievances must be addressed through the formal election petition process.
Why the Supreme Court declined to intervene
The court maintained that it lacks the authority to interfere with the decisions of a Returning Officer once a nomination has been rejected. During the hearing, the bench emphasized that Article 329 is designed to prevent judicial delays from stalling the electoral process. The justices questioned the petitioner’s counsel, Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, on whether any legal precedent existed for the court to intervene at the nomination stage.
The court stated that even if a decision by a Returning Officer is erroneous, the appropriate remedy lies with an election tribunal after the poll concludes, rather than through a writ petition under Article 32 or Article 226.
Basis for the nomination rejection
The nomination papers for the Rajya Sabha seat in Madhya Pradesh were rejected by Returning Officer Arvind Sharma following a complaint filed by BJP candidate Mahesh Kewat. According to official records, the complaint alleged that Natarajan failed to disclose a pending criminal case registered against her in Telangana in her mandatory Form 26 affidavit.
Under the Representation of the People Act, candidates are required to disclose criminal cases that carry a minimum sentence of two years. While the petitioner’s counsel argued that only summons had been issued in the case—suggesting the disclosure requirement was not triggered—the Returning Officer determined that the omission rendered the affidavit incomplete.
Legal implications of Article 329
Article 329 of the Indian Constitution serves as a "non-obstante" clause that limits the power of courts to question the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats. It specifically mandates that no election shall be called into question except by an election petition presented to such authority as the appropriate legislature may provide.
This ruling reinforces the long-standing judicial doctrine that the electoral process should remain insulated from court-ordered stays. By requiring parties to wait for the election tribunal process, the Supreme Court ensures that the administration of Indian elections remains under the purview of the Election Commission of India until the results are declared.
Summary of Key Developments
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Petitioner | Meenakshi Natarajan (Congress) |
| Opposing Party | Mahesh Kewat (BJP) |
| Core Issue | Non-disclosure of criminal case in Form 26 |
| Legal Barrier | Article 329 of the Indian Constitution |
| Court Ruling | Petition dismissed; remedy lies in election petition |
Moving forward, the rejection of the nomination stands, and any further challenge to the election result in the Madhya Pradesh constituency would require the filing of a formal election petition after the conclusion of the polling process.
Worth a look