Rejection Of Meenakshi Natarajan’s Rajya Sabha Nomination Is 'Blatantly Unlawful': Congress To Election Commission

The Congress on Wednesday approached the Election Commission (EC), demanding the immediate reversal of the rejection of senior leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s Rajya Sabha nomination. The party alleged that the Returning Officer (RO) had based the decision on a criminal case that, legally, did not exist.

A high-level delegation led by AICC General Secretary (Organisation) K C Venugopal met Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and other Election Commissioners to press the party’s case. The delegation included Natarajan, senior Congress leaders Abhishek Singhvi, Jairam Ramesh, Bhupesh Baghel, Deepa Dasmunshi and Randeep Singh Surjewala.

With Wednesday marking the final day for withdrawal of nominations, the Congress pressed the Commission for an urgent decision.

The Congress argued that the RO’s decision was legally untenable and had undermined the electoral process even before voting could take place.

Describing the RO’s order as “egregious”, “patently unlawful” and “without authority of law”, the party urged the Election Commission to act swiftly, set aside the rejection of Natarajan’s nomination, and restore fairness to the electoral process.

Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Singhvi strongly criticised the rejection order, saying it was as illogical as “writing two plus two equals seven”. He said Natarajan’s nomination had been rejected on the allegation that she failed to disclose a pending criminal case in her nomination papers.

According to Singhvi, however, no criminal case was pending against the Congress leader. He explained that Natarajan had merely received a court notice asking her to appear and explain why cognisance should not be taken of a private complaint. Under criminal law, he said, a case comes into existence only after a magistrate takes cognisance.

“Ms Natarajan only received a notice to come to court and tell the court why cognizance should not be taken. That means the notice she received was before any cognisance was taken,” he added.

“The magistrate has not taken cognisance. Without cognisance, there is no criminal case. Therefore, there was nothing for her to disclose,” Singhvi said.

Referring to Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, Singhvi said candidates are required to disclose only those criminal cases in which the alleged offence carries a punishment of more than two years and where charges have already been framed by a court.

He argued that Natarajan’s matter had not reached that stage. “First comes cognisance, then investigation, then a chargesheet, and finally the framing of charges. The law requires disclosure only after charges have been framed,” he said.

In its submission to the Commission, the Congress contended that rejecting a nomination on such grounds deprived a candidate of the opportunity to contest and created an uneven electoral field.

The party maintained that the decision ran contrary to democratic norms and compromised the fairness of the election process.

The delegation also urged the EC to exercise its powers under Article 324 of the Constitution to rectify what it termed a serious legal error. Singhvi asserted that the Commission had the authority to review and overturn decisions taken by Returning Officers and should not force candidates to seek relief through lengthy election petition proceedings.

To bolster its argument, the Congress cited precedents from Haryana and Gujarat where the Commission had intervened in matters relating to nominations and electoral procedures. The party submitted legal notes and supporting documents during the meeting.