Congress MP Digvijaya Singh condemned the rejection of Meenakshi Natarajan’s Rajya Sabha nomination as unconstitutional and illegal [1, 2].
The dispute highlights growing tensions over the nomination process for India's upper house of Parliament. Allegations of procedural bias in the vetting of candidates can lead to legal challenges that delay the seating of lawmakers and fuel political instability.
Speaking in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, Singh said the decision to reject the nomination was biased [1, 2]. He said the Returning Officer based the rejection on a non-cognisable notice, which he said constitutes a violation of constitutional procedure [1].
"The rejection of Meenakshi Natarajan’s Rajya Sabha nomination is unconstitutional and illegal," Singh said [1].
Singh further alleged that the administrative action was not based on valid legal grounds. "The decision is biased and based on a non-cognisable notice," he said [1].
The Congress leader announced that his party would pursue both legal and political action to challenge the ruling [1, 2]. This move suggests a strategy to contest the Returning Officer's authority in court while simultaneously mobilizing political pressure against the decision.
Singh's criticism centers on the specific nature of the notice used to disqualify Natarajan. Because non-cognisable offenses generally do not allow police to make arrests without a warrant, Singh said that using such a notice as a basis for rejection is an improper application of the law [1].
“The rejection of Meenakshi Natarajan’s Rajya Sabha nomination is unconstitutional and illegal.”
This conflict underscores the critical role of the Returning Officer in the Indian electoral process. By challenging a rejection based on a non-cognisable notice, the Congress party is attempting to set a legal precedent regarding what constitutes a valid disqualification for Rajya Sabha candidates, potentially limiting the discretionary power of election officials in future nominations.
