By Admin 
- The Supreme Court described the election petition as the only legal remedy.
The Supreme Court on Friday (June 12, 2026) rejected the petition of Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan, in which she had challenged the rejection of her nomination for the Rajya Sabha elections held on Tuesday (June 9, 2026) in Madhya Pradesh. In fact, the court said that Article 329 of the Constitution prohibits the interference of the court in election matters and in such cases election petition is the only remedy.
The bench of Justice PK Mishra and Justice AS Chandurkar has refused to make any exception in Natarajan’s case. The bench also said that its order dismissing the petition will not affect the arguments to be made in the election petition to be filed in the High Court by Natarajan or any other person on his behalf.
What argument did Abhishek Manu Singhvi give to the court?
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan, said the June 9 order of the Returning Officer, rejecting the nomination on the ground of non-mention of summons from a Hyderabad court, is very strange.
He said that under the Representation of the People Act, it is necessary to disclose those cases in which a candidate has been convicted or charges have been framed against him. He argued that the Hyderabad court has not yet taken cognizance of the complaint in this matter and had only sought a reply from Natarajan at the initial stage.
What decision did the bench of two judges give?
Whereas the Supreme Court, citing its previous decisions in election related matters, said that in view of Article 329, it has always refrained from using writ juridiction. The bench said, ‘We fear that no such interpretation can be accepted under which the court should in some cases interfere with wrongly rejected nominations and in other cases leave the candidates to file election petitions. Therefore the petition is dismissed.
Also read: Complainant in Meenakshi Natarajan case is in fear of her life, accused of threats and surveillance in court