SC turns down Meenakshi Natarajan’s plea

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s plea against rejection of her nomination papers for the Rajya Sabha election from Madhya Pradesh, while granting her liberty to raise the challenge in an election petition.

A bench comprising justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S Chandurkar rejected the argument by senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Natarajan, that Article 32 can be invoked to cure “glaring and manifest” errors in the rejection of her nomination. The top court said whenever an attempt has been made to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 32, or that of the High Courts under Article 226, during the process of elections, it has repeatedly declined interference due to the constitutional mandate contained in Article 329(b) of the Constitution.

“If the court accepts arguments to find out glaring cases which are required to be interfered under Article 32/226, and the other sets of cases, where the rejection is not so improper prima facie to relegate them to election petitions, this court would be reading some principle which is not provided for under Article 329.

“We are afraid, that any such interpretation that in some of the matters this court can interfere while leaving some others to avail the remedy of election tribunal cannot be encouraged,” the bench said.

Article 329 of the Indian Constitution bars courts from interfering in electoral matters, ensuring elections proceed without judicial delays. The apex court refused to accept Singhvi’s submission that SC should intervene where the rejection of a nomination is ex facie illegal, manifestly arbitrary and demonstrably erroneous.

“To accept the petitioner’s submission would amount to reading into the constitutional scheme an exception which has not been provided by the Constitution itself,” it said. The top court clarified that any observations made in this order concerning the basis of rejection of the petitioner’s nomination have been made only for the purpose of considering the maintainability of the present proceedings. “Nothing stated herein shall affect the rights and contentions of the petitioner, or of any other person, in any election petition that may be filed before the competent High Court in accordance with law,” the bench said.

At the outset, Singhvi submitted that the returning officer acted completely arbitrarily and referred to Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act and said only the criminal cases where charges have been framed by the trial court need to be disclosed in the nomination papers. Singhvi submitted that Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita stipulates that the potential accused has to be sent a notice before taking cognisance on a private complaint.

The senior lawyer argued that Natarajan has only received the notice under Section 223, and the court has neither taken cognisance on the complaint nor charges have been framed.

Without cognisance, there is no criminal proceeding in the eyes of law, he said.

At this juncture, the top court remarked that a court issues a summons in the case only after applying its mind and finding a prima facie case.

Singhvi submitted that good governance requires that electoral processes be allowed to function according to law.

“The Election Commission’s role is to facilitate elections, not to frustrate them. Equally, judicial review of an order passed by the Election Commission should facilitate the democratic process rather than impede it,” he said.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the returned candidate, submitted that the right to contest an election has consistently been held by this Court to be a statutory right and it is not a fundamental right.

Rohatgi questioned the maintainability of the plea under Article 32 of the Constitution and said Article 329 creates a constitutional bar

“The effect of Article 329 is that the remedies under Articles 32 and 226 stand excluded in matters relating to elections,” he said.

Rohatgi said the constitutional scheme is that any challenge must ordinarily await the completion of the election process and be raised through the election law mechanism.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the MP government, submitted that the state government was supporting the other contesting candidate.

Senior advocate DS Naidu, appearing for the Election Commission, referred to section 100 of The Representation of the People Act, 1951, and said the Election Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the election disputes.

It was submitted that non-disclosure of information required under Clause 5 of Form 26 would make the affidavit incomplete and it justifies rejection of the nomination.

An order by the Rajya Sabha election returning officer, Arvind Sharma, stated that it was found after examining available documents that Natarajan submitted an incomplete affidavit, omitting a court complaint in Form 26 submitted with her nomination.

According to a Madhya Pradesh assembly official, the ruling BJP candidate, Mahesh Kewat, filed a complaint with the returning officer alleging that Natarajan had not mentioned in her affidavit a case registered against her in Telangana.

After the scrutiny of papers, the returning officer on Thursday declared all the three BJP candidates elected unopposed.