The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a plea by Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the rejection of her nomination papers for the Rajya Sabha election from Madhya Pradesh. The plea was made before a vacation Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S. Chandurkar, who assured an early hearing after senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Natarajan, requested urgent listing of the matter. Singhvi argued that if not heard promptly, the petitioner would have to wait six years for relief due to the nomination withdrawal deadline.
During the mentioning, Singhvi highlighted that Thursday marked the final date for nomination withdrawal and emphasized the need for urgent attention to avoid a prolonged delay for the petitioner. The senior counsel urged the apex court to halt the election result declaration until the dispute was resolved. However, the Bench led by Justice Mishra declined to issue any interim orders at this stage, confirming that the matter would be heard on Friday.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Returning Officer, and senior advocate D.S. Naidu, appearing for the Election Commission, opposed the plea for immediate intervention. Natarajan approached the Supreme Court after her nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officer following objections raised by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The objections were based on Natarajan’s alleged failure to disclose details of a case pending before a Telangana court in the affidavit submitted with her nomination papers.
Natarajan refuted the allegations, labeling them as part of a “political conspiracy,” and contested a petition filed by former corporate executive A. Srilatha in a Hyderabad court. Earlier, she accused the Returning Officers of being “compromised” and acting under government influence. Natarajan, the Congress party’s sole Rajya Sabha candidate from Madhya Pradesh, criticized what she perceived as attempts to undermine democracy through the rejection of her nomination, targeting the BJP-led government for allegedly controlling the Returning Officers as mouthpieces of the ruling party rather than independent constitutional authorities.
