The Supreme Court of India on Friday delivered a significant blow to Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan by dismissing her petition regarding the rejection of her nomination for the Rajya Sabha elections. The nomination had been previously cancelled by the Returning Officer (RO), a decision that the Congress leader chose to challenge in the highest court of the land. During the hearing conducted today, the bench clarified its position, stating that it can't intervene in this specific matter as the petition was deemed not maintainable under the current legal framework.
Legal Grounds for Dismissal
The Supreme Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Form 26, which requires candidates to disclose comprehensive details of any criminal cases through an affidavit. The court clarified that the rules under Form 26 necessitate the disclosure of various types of information. It isn't merely limited to cases where a court has taken cognizance or where a chargesheet has been filed. The bench noted that candidates are obligated to provide a full account of their legal standing as per the prescribed regulations.
Precedents and Judicial Restraint
In its observations, the Supreme Court referred to the Punnu Swami case, which established a clear legal precedent. The court reiterated that it can't interfere in matters concerning the rejection of nominations once the electoral process has commenced, while the bench stated that previous judgments make it explicitly clear that the judiciary shouldn't intervene after the election machinery is set in motion. According to the court, a writ petition can't be filed once the process has started; instead, any grievances or demands for remedy must be addressed solely through an election petition. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the Returning Officer's decision to reject the nomination.
Arguments by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi
Representing Meenakshi Natarajan, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi presented a series of rigorous arguments. He described the Returning Officer's order as highly unusual. Singhvi argued that if cognizance is taken, he must be allowed to show whether charges have been framed, asserting that there is nothing substantial against his client in the complaint. He contended that if an RO acts arbitrarily and listens to only one side, judicial intervention should be permissible, while singhvi further cited constitutional bench decisions in support of his client, questioning why information should be disclosed if no charges have been framed. He remarked that if a criminal case were pending, the candidate would have disclosed it. He also criticized the Election Commission, calling its silence deplorable despite his hour-long arguments before the body, which is supposed to be the guardian of the Constitution.
Timeline of Events and Political Outcome
Singhvi detailed the timeline, noting that the order was issued on the 9th, they approached the Election Commission on the 10th, and he mentioned the matter in court on the 11th. He expressed fears that the results would be declared quickly, which indeed happened yesterday. He used a hypothetical example, stating that if an RO were to write that 2+2=6, the law shouldn't be a silent spectator. He lamented that an election petition could take 2 to 3 years to resolve, during which time the candidate is effectively barred from the contest. Following the court's decision, Meenakshi Natarajan expressed her disappointment, alleging that the Election Commission isn't impartial. She stated that she would take the matter to the public and discuss the next steps with party leaders. Meanwhile, in Madhya Pradesh, the BJP secured all 3 Rajya Sabha seats. The Election Officer declared Tarun Chugh, Rajneesh Agrawal, and Mahesh Kewat elected unopposed.