The Congress party on Wednesday met the Election Commission (EC) seeking an immediate reversal of the rejection of senior leader Meenakshi Natarajan's Rajya Sabha nomination, alleging that the Returning Officer (RO) had relied on a criminal case that does not legally exist.
High-Level Delegation Meets EC
A high-level delegation led by AICC General Secretary (Organisation) K C Venugopal, including candidate Natarajan and senior leaders Abhishek Singhvi, Jairam Ramesh, Bhupesh Baghel, Deepa Dasmunshi, and Randeep Singh Surjewala, met Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and other Election Commissioners. They argued that the RO's decision was legally unsustainable and distorted the electoral process before voting could take place.
Congress's Legal Argument
Addressing the media after the meeting, Singhvi described the order as flawed, comparing it to “writing two plus two equals seven.” He stated that Natarajan's nomination was rejected on grounds that she failed to disclose a pending criminal case. However, Singhvi asserted that no criminal case was pending against her. He explained that she had only received a court notice to appear and explain why cognisance should not be taken on a private complaint. Under criminal law, a case arises only after a magistrate takes cognisance. “The magistrate has not taken cognisance. Without cognisance, there is no criminal case. Therefore, there was nothing for her to disclose,” Singhvi said.
Referring to Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, Singhvi noted that candidates must disclose only criminal cases where the offence carries a punishment of more than two years and where charges have been framed. He emphasised that Natarajan's case had not reached that stage. “First comes cognisance, then investigation, then chargesheet, and finally framing of charges. The law requires disclosure only after charges have been framed,” he added.
Appeal to EC's Powers
The Congress told the EC that rejecting a nomination on such grounds created an uneven playing field and denied a candidate the opportunity to contest. The party argued that such actions were contrary to democratic principles and affected electoral fairness. The delegation urged the Commission to invoke its powers under Article 324 of the Constitution to correct what it termed a serious legal error. Singhvi said the EC is fully empowered to review and overturn RO decisions and should not compel candidates to wait years for judicial remedies through election petitions. Citing precedents from Haryana and Gujarat, where the Commission intervened in nomination matters, the Congress submitted documents and legal notes to support its case.
Urgent Decision Sought
With Wednesday being the last day for withdrawal of nominations, the party urged the EC to decide immediately. Describing the RO's order as “egregious”, “patently unlawful”, and “without authority of law”, the Congress demanded swift action to restore fairness to the electoral process and set aside the rejection of Natarajan's nomination.
