The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by Congress candidate Meenakshi Natarajan, which challenged the rejection of her nomination papers for the Rajya Sabha elections from Madhya Pradesh. The court refused to create an exception to the well-established judicial principle that prevents courts from entertaining election disputes after the commencement of the poll process.
Court's Ruling
A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and A S Chandurkar, operating on a partial working day, delivered the verdict. The bench stated that the appropriate remedy lies in filing an election petition to challenge the election of the returned candidate. This decision came after senior advocate A M Singhvi, representing Natarajan, made a strong but unsuccessful attempt to persuade the court to carve out an exception and examine the validity of the returning officer's decision.
Arguments Presented
During the hour-long proceedings, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the BJP candidate whose election was facilitated by Natarajan's disqualification, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Madhya Pradesh government, cited a previous Supreme Court judgment where a similar plea against rejection of nomination papers was dismissed. The bench emphasized that the Supreme Court or High Courts cannot entertain writ petitions under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution once the election process has commenced with the notification of polls.
Grounds for Rejection
Natarajan's nomination papers were rejected because she failed to disclose a pending criminal case based on a private complaint in her election affidavit. Singhvi argued that in the private complaint, the trial court had only issued summonses to her and had not taken cognizance. He claimed that the complaint was originally not against Natarajan and that her name was added three years later after she became the All India Congress Committee in-charge for Telangana.
Disclosure Requirements
Singhvi contended that the Representation of the People Act requires a candidate to disclose only those cases where a chargesheet has been filed and charges have been framed. However, Rohatgi, Mehta, and advocate Kanu Agrawal contested this, stating that since 2018, it has been mandatory to disclose all pending criminal cases, including those where chargesheets have not been filed or charges have not been framed.
Legal Precedent
The bench declined to enter the political thicket and dismissed Singhvi's allegations of grave mala fide against the Election Commission. The court stated, "The law is well-settled in a catena of judgments starting from the Supreme Court's six-judge bench judgment in the N P Ponnuswami case in 1952 and has been consistently followed without any dilution that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts is barred from entertaining petitions relating to poll disputes once the election process commences."
For the latest India news and live updates, download the Times of India app.
