Daijiworld Media Network – New Delhi
New Delhi, Jun 12: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh, holding that courts cannot interfere in an ongoing election process.
A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S Chandurkar observed that the settled legal position bars judicial intervention during elections and said Natarajan's remedy lies in filing an election petition after the electoral process is completed.
Natarajan's nomination was rejected by the Returning Officer on the grounds that she had submitted an incomplete Form 26 affidavit and failed to disclose a pending complaint case against her. The Returning Officer noted that she had earlier filed written submissions in the complaint proceedings and was therefore aware of the case.
The court also noted that Natarajan had approached the Election Commission challenging the Returning Officer's decision and had personally presented her case before the full Commission on June 10. However, no order had been passed on her representation.
Appearing on her behalf, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the constitutional bar on judicial interference in election matters was not applicable in the present case, as the petition sought to ensure a fair and transparent election process rather than obstruct it.
He contended that the rejection of the nomination was patently illegal since no cognisance had been taken and no charges had been framed in the complaint case cited against her.
However, the Election Commission and other respondents argued that the right to contest elections is a statutory right and that challenges to nomination rejections can only be pursued through an election petition after the election process concludes.
The Supreme Court agreed with this position, observing that disclosure requirements are governed by statutory provisions and that candidates are required to furnish all relevant information through Form 26 as prescribed under election rules.
Relying on established legal precedents, including the landmark Ponnuswami judgment, the bench reiterated that courts should not interfere in the electoral process while it is underway.
The court also rejected the argument that judicial intervention should be permitted in cases where nomination rejection appears manifestly illegal, stating that such an exception is not contemplated under the constitutional framework governing elections.
Dismissing the plea, the court clarified that its observations were limited to the present proceedings and would not affect any election petition that Natarajan may choose to file in the future.