Menakshi Natrajan Denied Relief by Supreme Court, Granted Option to File Petition
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
12, June,2026-The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s challenge to the Madhya Pradesh Assembly’s decision to reject her nomination for the Rajya Sabha, holding that election-related objections of this nature cannot be entertained once the electoral process has begun.
A two-judge bench, headed by Justices P.K. Mishra and A.S. Chandurkar, relied on Article 329(b) of the Constitution to underscore a bright-line rule: disputes touching the validity of an election or the qualification of candidates are not maintainable after the initiation of the election process.
The bench observed that permitting belated challenges would run counter to the constitutional scheme designed to preserve the finality and stability of electoral proceedings.
Background: rejection and objections
Natarajan’s nomination papers were rejected on June 9 by Arvind Sharma, Principal Secretary of the Madhya Pradesh Assembly, following written objections filed by two BJP functionaries, Mahesh Kewat and Rahul Kothari. The objectors contended that Natarajan had failed to disclose a pending criminal matter in Hyderabad in the election affidavit she submitted, thereby rendering her nomination impermissible under the relevant electoral rules.
Arguments before the Court
Counsel for Natarajan urged the court to set aside the rejection, stressing that there was in fact no cognizable criminal case against the petitioner at the relevant time.
The defence pointed out that only a private complaint had been filed in Hyderabad and that the trial court had not yet taken cognizance as such, the matter had not ripened into a prosecutable case that would trigger mandatory disclosure in the affidavit. Further, they argued that pre-cognizance communications or notices do not amount to a “pending case” for the purposes of electoral disclosure obligations.
Bench’s reasoning
The bench accepted the broader constitutional principle that once the election machinery is in motion, such challenges must be foreclosed to protect the integrity and certainty of the electoral process.
In its reasoning, the court emphasized that judicial intervention at that stage would disrupt statutory time-lines and the orderly conduct of elections. The bench therefore declined to entertain Natarajan’s petition and dismissed it.
What this means
The decision reinforces the narrow window available to contest candidate qualifications under the Constitution and electoral law.
It clarifies that procedural and timing constraints under Article 329(b) can bar scrutiny of nomination rejections, even where factual disputes about disclosure or the existence of a criminal proceeding are asserted.
Next steps
Natarajan may consider alternate legal remedies if available, but the Supreme Court’s dismissal signals the judiciary’s reluctance to reopen election-related questions once electoral processes have been set in motion.
Parties and prospective candidates should take this ruling as a reminder to resolve disclosure and eligibility issues at the earliest possible stage to avoid being foreclosed by constitutional timing bars.
