The Supreme Court of India dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, upholding the rejection of a nomination paper for Rajya Sabha elections on the ground of suppression of material information regarding a pending criminal case.
The Court reiterated the constitutional bar under Article 329(b) and held that challenges to the rejection of nomination papers during the election process are not maintainable before constitutional courts.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, Meenakshi Natarajan, a candidate belonging to the Indian National Congress, filed her nomination for a Rajya Sabha seat from the State of Madhya Pradesh. Her nomination was rejected by the Returning Officer on 09.06.2026 on the ground that she did not disclose the pendency of a criminal case against her in the Form-26 affidavit.
According to the Returning Officer, the petitioner suppressed material information by filing an incomplete affidavit. The Court had taken cognizance of the criminal complaint and summons had been issued to her. The petitioner approached the Election Commission of India, but no relief was granted. Aggrieved, she filed the writ petition before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
- Maintainability of a writ petition under Article 32 against rejection of nomination during the election process in view of the bar under Article 329(b) of the Constitution.
- Whether non-disclosure of a pending criminal case (where cognizance has been taken but charges are not framed) in Form-26 justifies rejection of nomination.
Arguments by the Petitioner
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that:
- The bar under Article 329(b) is not attracted as the petition was filed to ensure completion of the election process in a fair and transparent manner.
- Under Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, disclosure is required only in cases where a charge has been framed by a competent court. Since no charge was framed, there was no violation.
- The rejection was ex-facie illegal and arbitrary.
He relied upon judgments such as Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner and others.
Respondents’ Arguments and Court’s Decision
The petition was opposed by Shri Mukul Rohatgi (for private respondents), Shri Dama Seshadri Naidu (for Election Commission of India), and Solicitor General Shri Tushar Mehta (for the State of Madhya Pradesh).
The Supreme Court, in a detailed order delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S. Chandurkar, extensively relied upon the landmark Constitution Bench judgment in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (1952).
The Court held that the word “election” under Article 329(b) has a wide meaning and covers the entire electoral process. Any challenge to the rejection of nomination can only be raised after the conclusion of the election by way of an election petition. Writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 or 226 cannot be invoked to interfere during the election process.
The Court clarified that the right to contest elections is a statutory right and not a fundamental right in the absolute sense. It emphasized that allowing pre-poll judicial interference would disrupt the election schedule and defeat the constitutional scheme.
While the Court did not delve deeply into the merits of the non-disclosure issue, it observed that candidates are required to make full disclosure of pending criminal cases in Form-26. However, the final adjudication on the validity of rejection was left open for an election petition, if filed.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
This judgment reinforces the long-settled principle of judicial non-interference in ongoing electoral matters and underscores the importance of complete and accurate disclosure by candidates in nomination papers.
Case Details
Case Title: Meenakshi Natarajan v. Election Commission of India & Anr.
Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 766/2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 643
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S. Chandurkar
Date of Judgment: 12th June 2026
Click HERE for full ORDER.
Lawcutor 