Congress to Move High Court After Meenakshi Natarajan’s Rajya Sabha Nomination Rejection
Party Alleges Election Commission Failed to Ensure Fair Process; Legal Battle Shifts to High Court After Supreme Court Declines Intervention
The Congress has announced that it will approach the High Court by filing an election petition challenging the rejection of senior leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s nomination for the Rajya Sabha election from Madhya Pradesh. The move comes after the Supreme Court declined to interfere during the ongoing electoral process, leaving the party to pursue the statutory legal remedy available after the election.
Addressing the media, Meenakshi Natarajan alleged that a deliberate narrative had been created to portray the rejection of her nomination as the result of negligence by the Congress, while shielding the role of the Election Commission. She asserted that the party would now challenge the entire nomination process before the jurisdictional High Court through an election petition.
The controversy began after the Returning Officer rejected Natarajan’s nomination papers for the Rajya Sabha election in Madhya Pradesh. The rejection effectively altered the electoral contest, with the available seats being decided without her participation, triggering sharp political criticism from the Congress.
Earlier, the Congress had moved the Supreme Court seeking immediate judicial intervention against the Returning Officer’s decision. However, the apex court ruled that Article 329(b) of the Constitution bars judicial interference in electoral matters while the election process is underway, directing the aggrieved candidate to pursue an election petition after completion of the election.
The Supreme Court emphasized that disputes relating to rejection of nomination papers ordinarily fall within the election petition mechanism prescribed under election law. The Bench held that constitutional courts cannot interrupt an ongoing election merely because the candidate alleges illegality in the Returning Officer’s decision.
The Congress maintains that the rejection was legally unsustainable and deprived it of a legitimate opportunity to contest a Rajya Sabha seat. Party leaders argue that the Returning Officer adopted an erroneous interpretation of the nomination requirements and that the matter deserves judicial scrutiny after the election process concludes.
Political observers believe the High Court proceedings could have implications beyond this individual case. If the election petition succeeds, the court may examine whether the Returning Officer acted within the limits of the law and whether any procedural irregularity materially affected the election outcome. Such findings could influence future standards governing scrutiny of nomination papers.
The Election Commission has maintained that Returning Officers exercise statutory powers independently while scrutinizing nomination papers under the applicable election rules. The final determination of whether those powers were exercised lawfully will now depend on judicial examination in the election petition proceedings.
Legal experts note that election petitions remain the principal statutory remedy for challenging the validity of an election or the rejection of nomination papers after the electoral process concludes. The forthcoming High Court litigation is therefore expected to become the next major chapter in one of the most closely watched Rajya Sabha election disputes of the year.
