The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan's petition challenging the rejection of her nomination for the Rajya Sabha elections in Madhya Pradesh. A bench of Justices PK Mishra and AS Chandurkar held that Article 329 of the Constitution bars judicial interference in electoral matters, and an election petition is the only remedy available.
Key Facts
- The bench refused to make an exception for Natarajan, stating that allowing interference in some cases while leaving others to file election petitions would be inconsistent.
- The court clarified that its order does not affect any arguments Natarajan may raise in an election petition before the high court.
- Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Natarajan, argued that the returning officer's June 9 order was arbitrary and disturbed the level playing field.
Details of the Case
Natarajan's nomination was rejected based on a complaint by BJP candidate Mahesh Kewat. The returning officer cited omission of a Hyderabad court's summons in her nomination form. Singhvi contended that the Representation of the People Act requires disclosure only of cases where a candidate is convicted or charges are framed, and the Hyderabad court had not taken cognisance of the complaint.
The court, however, cited its earlier decisions and refused to invoke its writ jurisdiction. “We are afraid that any such interpretation that, in some cases, the court may interfere where a candidate’s nomination paper is wrongly rejected, while leaving some others to file an election petition, cannot be accepted. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed,” the bench observed.
Arguments and Reactions
Singhvi argued that the court has the power to interfere in cases of patent error. “This court is the sentinel on the qui vive which seeks to guard fundamental rights...this is a candidate who is only seeking to stand for elections,” he said. He also criticised the Election Commission for declaring results while the matter was pending in court.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Madhya Pradesh government, said the state would assist the court on whether candidates must disclose all pending cases. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Kewat, argued that the right to contest an election is statutory, not fundamental, and Natarajan's writ petition was not maintainable.
Impact and What Readers Should Know
The Supreme Court's decision reinforces the principle that courts will not interfere in electoral processes once they have begun, as per Article 329. The ruling underscores the importance of filing election petitions as the appropriate legal remedy. The Election Commission's declaration of Kewat as elected unopposed highlights the consequences of nomination rejections.
FAQ
Why did the Supreme Court dismiss Meenakshi Natarajan's petition?
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition citing Article 329 of the Constitution, which bars courts from interfering in electoral matters once the election process has begun. The court held that an election petition is the only remedy.
What was the reason for rejection of Natarajan's nomination?
The returning officer rejected her nomination on June 9, citing omission of a Hyderabad court's summons in her nomination form. The court had sought her response at the pre-cognisance stage of a complaint.
What did the Election Commission do after the rejection?
After the Supreme Court refused to interfere on June 10, the last date for withdrawal, the Election Commission declared BJP candidate Mahesh Kewat elected unopposed.