Mala Dixit, New Delhi: In a significant blow to the Congress party, the Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by the party leader Meenakshi Natarajan, challenging the rejection of her nomination for the Rajya Sabha elections in Madhya Pradesh.
While the apex court refused to entertain her plea, it allowed her to raise the issue by filing an election petition under the Representation of the People Act.
Why Was Meenakshi Natarajan's Plea Rejected?
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and As Chandurkar refused to entertain Natarajan's plea, citing that Article 329 of the Constitution bars the interference of courts in electoral matters. The top court said that an election petition is the only remedy in such cases.
Before delivering its verdict, the court heard arguments from Natarajan's lawyer, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, opposing lawyers Mukul Rohatgi, Kanu Agarwal and DS Naidu on behalf of the Election Commission, and Tushar Mehta on behalf of the Madhya Pradesh government.
What Did Congress Say?
Singhvi termed the Returning Officer's decision to reject Natarajan's nomination as 'wrong'. He argued that under Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, candidates are only required to disclose criminal cases in their affidavit if the crimes are punishable by more than two years of imprisonment, or if a court has formally framed charges.
He pointed out that in the specific case leading to her nomination rejection, the court had neither framed charges nor taken formal cognisance. Instead, it has only issued summons to Natarajan based on a private complaint.
Countering Singhvi's arguments, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the BJP, argued that the right to contest an election is a legislative right, not a fundamental right. Consequently, he said that the Supreme Court cannot entertain a writ petition under Article 32, as a petition under Article 32 is filed based on a violation of fundamental rights.
Rohatgi further argued that Article 329 of the Constitution imposes a bar on the interference of courts in electoral matters. He further stated that candidates must disclose all pending criminal matters in their affidavits, not just those in which charges have been framed.
Singhvi argued that if there is a clear mistake in rejecting a nomination, the Supreme Court can hear a petition under Article 32 and pass an order to ensure justice.
Article 329 Of Constitution
The Supreme Court, however, was not convinced by Singhvi's arguments. The court held that accepting this would mean cases with a clear error in rejection of nomination could be heard under Articles 32 and 226, while other cases would be referred to election petitions. The bench noted that doing so would mean laying down a principle not mentioned in Article 329.
The court dismissed the petition. However, it has allowed Natarajan to raise the issue by filing an election petition under the Representation of the People Act.
For More News Updates Follow Us On www.tconews.in
