SC Dismissed Meenakshi Natarajan’s Plea, But She Still Has One Legal Remedy Left

Last Updated:June 12, 2026, 14:27 IST

After SC dismissed her plea, Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan said she would now turn to the court of the public. Does she have any legal remedies left?

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s plea challenging the rejection of her nomination papers for the Rajya Sabha election from Madhya Pradesh. While Natarajan called it “serious blow to the country and democracy", she insisted they would now go to the “court of the public".

Does Natarajan have any legal remedies left?

‘Will Now Go to the Court of the Public’: What Meenakshi Natarajan Said

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate Mahesh Kewat had filed a complaint with the Returning Officer alleging that Natarajan had not mentioned in her affidavit a case registered against her in Telangana. An order issued by Rajya Sabha Election Returning Officer Arvind Sharma stated that, after examining the available documents, it was found that Natarajan had submitted an incomplete affidavit, omitting details of a court complaint in Form 26, which was submitted along with her nomination papers.

Natarajan said the issue is not a personal matter but one concerning the nation and democratic values. She added that they would now go to the “court of the public".

On the next course of action, she said it would be decided after discussions with party members. She further maintained that there was no mistake on their part.

What Natarajan Could Do Next: The Sole Legal Remedy

Natarajan can now file an election petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Natarajan’s legal team, led by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, can seek to prove that the Returning Officer’s (RO) decision was arbitrary. They could argue that a pre-cognisance show-cause notice does not constitute a criminal case and therefore did not legally require disclosure under Section 33A.

If the High Court eventually finds the RO’s rejection improper, it has the power to set aside the election of the winning candidate(s) and order a fresh poll.

Outside the Courtroom

Outside the courtroom, the Congress party is using the disqualification to mount a political offensive against the BJP-led government.

Leaders such as Rahul Gandhi have called the rejection an instance of institutional subversion of democracy. General Secretary K.C. Venugopal stated that the party would fight the matter “on the streets, tooth and nail", campaigning against what it terms the “murder of democracy".

While this may not help her case for this seat, it could generate public sympathy ahead of upcoming local-body and state assembly elections.

Why the SC Dismissed Meenakshi Natarajan’s Petition

Wrongly Rejected? Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Natarajan, submitted that a candidate is required to disclose only those criminal cases that carry a minimum sentence of two years and that, in the present matter, only summons had been issued. He argued that the nomination papers for the Rajya Sabha poll in Madhya Pradesh were wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer on grounds of alleged non-disclosure of a criminal case under the Representation of the People Act.

‘Can’t Interfere’: A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S. Chandurkar said it had not expressed any view on the merits of the case.

“If the court accepts arguments to find out glaring cases which are required to be interfered with under Article 32/226, and the other sets of cases, where the rejection is not so improper prima facie as to relegate them to election petitions, this court would be reading some principle which is not provided for under Article 329. We are afraid that any such interpretation—that in some matters this Court can interfere while leaving others to avail themselves of the remedy before an election tribunal—cannot be encouraged," the bench said.

‘No Precedent’: Article 329 of the Constitution bars courts from interfering in electoral matters during the election process, ensuring that elections proceed without judicial delays. During the hearing, the top court observed that once a candidate’s nomination is rejected by the Returning Officer, the available remedies are governed by the constitutional and statutory election framework. The court also asked Natarajan’s counsel to cite any judgment in which it had interfered at such a stage.

“However erroneous the decision may be, once a nomination is rejected, the remedy ordinarily lies elsewhere. Is there any judgment of this Court where we have interfered at that stage," the bench asked.

With PTI Inputs

About the Author

Manjiri Joshi

At the news desk for 20 years, the story of her life has revolved around finding pun, facts while reporting, on radio, heading a daily newspaper desk, teaching mass media students to now editing speci...Read More

News explainers SC Dismissed Meenakshi Natarajan’s Plea, But She Still Has One Legal Remedy Left

Read More