Meenakshi Natarajan v Election Commission of India (2026): Nomination Rejection and the Article 329 Bar

Can the Supreme Court step in when a Returning Officer rejects a nomination? In Meenakshi Natarajan v. Election Commission of India (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 627), W.P.(C) No. 766/2026, a Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice AS Chandurkar said no. The decision was delivered on Friday, 12 June 2026.

A note on the title: the plan says nomination rejection "cannot be hyper-technical." The judgment I found does not say that. It holds that the writ petition was not maintainable because of Article 329. This post follows the source.

The facts

Congress member Meenakshi Natarajan's Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh was rejected by Returning Officer Arvind Sharma on 9 June. The stated reason was that her Form 26 affidavit did not disclose a private complaint filed against her in a Telangana court, though she had received a summons.

The complaint was a molestation allegation against another person. Natarajan was named as the fourth accused because, as AICC in-charge of Telangana, she allegedly did not act on it. She became in-charge in 2025, while the alleged incident was in 2022. The Election Commission later declared the other candidates elected uncontested.

The arguments

For the petitioner (Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi):

·        Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act requires disclosure of criminal cases only once charges are framed.

·        Under Section 223 of the BNSS, the accused must be heard before cognizance, so the complaint was still at a pre-cognizance stage.

·        The rejection was arbitrary, and Article 32 can correct glaring errors. He relied on MS Gill and Ashok Kumar.

For the respondents:

·        Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that contesting an election is a statutory right, not a fundamental right, so Article 32 cannot be used. He cited Article 329 and NP Ponnuswamy v. Returning Officer, which says improper rejection must be challenged by election petition.

·        Advocate Kanu Agarwal cited Manda Jaganath v. K.S. Rathnam and the words "Notwithstanding anything in the Constitution" in Article 329.

·        Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu relied on Section 100 of the RP Act, which gives the Election Tribunal exclusive jurisdiction.

·        Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the State of Madhya Pradesh, which sought to intervene.

Read Also: Supreme Court Bail Disposal Order: Sunny Chauhan

The decision

The Court declined to use its writ jurisdiction because of the Article 329 bar and dismissed the petition as non-maintainable. It left open the remedy of an election petition and made no observation on the merits.

The Court rejected the idea that it could step in only in "glaring" cases and leave others to the election tribunal. That would add a principle that Article 329 does not contain, and the bench said it "cannot be encouraged." Justice Mishra also noted the danger of splitting jurisdiction between the Supreme Court and High Courts on one side and election tribunals on the other.

Exam value

The rule to learn is that once the election process has started, challenges go through an election petition. The related cases are Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (cited by the petitioner), Ashok Kumar, NP Ponnuswamy v. Returning Officer and Manda Jaganath v. K.S. Rathnam (cited by the respondents).

The source page was partly marked as premium content, so details such as the reasoning on each cited case may be fuller in the original judgment.

Prepare confidently for judicial examinations through Online Judiciary Courses covering core law subjects, current legal updates, and exam strategies. 

FAQs

What is the case called?

Meenakshi Natarajan v. Election Commission of India, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 627.

Who decided it?

Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice AS Chandurkar.

When?

Friday, 12 June 2026.

Why was the nomination rejected?

Her Form 26 affidavit did not disclose a private complaint against her in a Telangana court.

What did the Court hold?

The writ petition was not maintainable because of the bar in Article 329.

What remedy remains?

An election petition.

Which Section of the RP Act did a respondent rely on?

Section 100, which gives the Election Tribunal exclusive jurisdiction.

Did the Court comment on the merits?

No.

Conclusion

Meenakshi Natarajan v. Election Commission of India reinforces the single route for election disputes. Remember Article 329 and the election petition.

At Aashayein Judiciary, Nitesh Sir and the team convert these developments into Judiciary Notes and Mock Test questions. Join us for Judiciary Coaching to prepare for the PCS J Exam, Civil Judge Exam and APO Exam.