The Congress party has approached the Election Commission and the Supreme Court to overturn the rejection of Meenakshi Natarajan’s Rajya Sabha nomination [1].
This legal challenge occurs as the party seeks to secure its representation in the upper house of Parliament. The dispute centers on whether administrative technicalities regarding candidate affidavits can be used to disqualify a nominee shortly before an election.
A delegation of Congress leaders, including K.C. Venugopal, Jairam Ramesh, and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, met with the Election Commission at its New Delhi headquarters [1]. The leaders said the decision by the Returning Officer to reject Natarajan's bid for the Madhya Pradesh seat was wrong [2].
The rejection followed a complaint filed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), specifically by candidate Mahesh Kewat [3]. The Returning Officer based the decision on allegations that Natarajan failed to disclose required information in her official affidavit [3].
Congress leaders said the rejection was perverse and contrary to the law [1]. The party said the decision is legally untenable and biased [3]. In addition to the meeting with the Election Commission, the party filed a petition with the Supreme Court to reverse the decision [2].
The timing of the legal battle is critical, as the Rajya Sabha polls are scheduled for June 18, 2026 [4]. The party has requested an urgent hearing before the Supreme Court on June 12, 2026 [5].
If the court or commission does not intervene, Natarajan will remain ineligible to contest the upcoming poll. The outcome depends on whether the judiciary views the non-disclosure as a fatal error or a correctable omission.
“Congress said the rejection was perverse and contrary to the law.”
This conflict highlights the high-stakes nature of Rajya Sabha nominations, where affidavit technicalities often become tools for political disqualification. By moving both the Election Commission and the Supreme Court, Congress is attempting to establish a legal precedent against what it views as politically motivated administrative rejections. The ruling will determine if the Returning Officer's discretion in vetting affidavits is absolute or subject to judicial correction when the election timeline is imminent.
