Meenakshi Natarajan vs Election Commission Of India
- Court
- Supreme Court
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2026 INSC 643
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S). 766/2026
MEENAKSHI NATARAJAN PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. The petitioner would call in question the order passed by
the Returning Officer on 09.06.2026, rejecting her nomination
for a Rajya Sabha seat in the biennial election for the Rajya
Sabha seats of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
2. The petitioner being a candidate belonging to Indian
National Congress submitted her nomination; however, the same
has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the
nomination paper filed by the petitioner Smt. Meenakshi
Natarajan as a candidate in the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sabha
election, in the Form-26 Affidavit, she did not disclose the
pendency of a criminal case against her, thereby suppressing
material information by filing an incomplete affidavit. It is
also mentioned that the Court has taken cognizance of the
criminal complaint filed against the petitioner and summons
Signature Not Verified
have also been issued to her to appear before the Court and
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2026.06.15
10:30:47 IST
Reason:
that the petitioner has also filed her statement before the
1
said Magisterial Court, therefore, she has full knowledge about
pendency of the case.
3. According to the petitioner, after the impugned order was
passed by the Returning Officer, the petitioner approached the
Election Commission of India; however, no orders have been
passed by the Election Commission despite filing a written
representation and arguing-in-person as well, before the
Election Commission on 10.06.2026.
4. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel,
appearing for the petitioner would submit, at the outset, that
the bar under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India is
not attracted, for the reason that the petitioner desires
completion of the election process in a fair and transparent
manner; and preferring this writ petition has no purpose or
motive to thwart the election process. It is also submitted,
referring to Section 33A of the Representation of the People
1
Act, 1951 that what is required under the Statute is of
disclosure of any case where a candidate is accused of an
offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more in a
pending case, in which a charge has been framed by a Court of
competent jurisdiction. Since, in the case pending against the
petitioner, cognizance is yet to be taken and charges are yet
to be framed, there is no such violation of the provisions
contained in Section 33A of the 1951 Act and as such rejection
of nomination is ex facie illegal and manifestly arbitrary. It
1
For short, “the 1951 Act”
2
is also submitted, referring to the law laid down in Mohinder
Singh Gill & Anr. vs The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi
2
& Ors. ; Election Commission of India Through Secretary vs.
3 4
Ashok Kumar & Ors. ; and Manda Jaganath vs. K.S. Rathnam & Ors.
that the Constitution does not contemplate a complete bar for
entertaining an election related dispute, when the relief
claimed in the petition is not for obstructing the process of
election but for its smooth completion in the manner known to
law under the 1951 Act.
5. Per contra, Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel,
representing the private respondents and Shri Dama Seshadri
Naidu, learned Senior Counsel, representing the Election
Commission of India and Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor
General, appearing for the Intervenor - State of Madhya
Pradesh, would vehemently oppose, not only the prayer made in
the writ petition but its very maintainability. According to
them, the right to contest election being a statutory right, a
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India which is
invokable only when fundamental right of a citizen is
infringed, is not maintainable. It is also submitted that the
law is well-settled, in catena of decisions starting from N.P.
Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and
5
Ors. (“Ponnuswami“) followed without any dilution till date,
2
(1978) 1 SCC 405
3
(2000) 8 SCC 216
4
(2004) 7 SCC 492
5
(1952) 1 SCC 94
3
that when nomination paper of a candidate who is a proposed
candidate in an Assembly election or a Parliamentary election
is rejected on whatsoever ground, the only remedy for the
candidate is to file an election petition, and the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the Supreme
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has no
jurisdiction to entertain any such dispute.
6. To appreciate the rival submissions vis-à-vis the
maintainability of this writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, it would be apt to reproduce the
provisions contained in Article 329 of the Constitution of
India and Section 33A of the 1951 Act. The same are reproduced
hereunder for ready reference:
Article 329 of the Constitution of India
329. Bar to interference by courts in electoral
matters.— Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution
(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation
of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such
constituencies, made or purporting to be made under
article 327 or article 328, shall not be called in
question in any court;
(b) no election to either House of Parliament or to the
House or either House of the Legislature of a State
shall be called in question except by an election
petition presented to such authority and in such manner
as may be provided for by or under any law made by the
appropriate Legislature.
*
Section 33A of the 1951 Act
33A. Right to information.—(1) A candidate shall, apart
from any information which he is required to furnish,
under this Act or the rules made thereunder, in his
nomination paper delivered under sub-section (1) of
section 33, also furnish the information as to whether—
(i) he is accused of any offence punishable with
imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case
4
in which a charge has been framed by the court of
competent jurisdiction;
(ii) he has been convicted of an offence other than
any offence referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-
section (2), or covered in sub-section (3), of
section 8 and sentenced to imprisonment for one year
or more.
(2) The candidate or his proposer, as the case may be,
shall, at the time of delivering to the returning
officer the nomination paper under sub-section (1) of
section 33, also deliver to him an affidavit sworn by
the candidate in a prescribed form verifying the
information specified in sub-section (1).
(3) The returning officer shall, as soon as may be after
the furnishing of information to him under sub-section
(1), display the aforesaid information by affixing a
copy of the affidavit, delivered under sub-section (2),
at a conspicuous place at his office for the information
of the electors relating to a constituency for which the
nomination paper is delivered.”
7. The requirement of submitting an affidavit is provided
under Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Rule 4A
provides that the candidate or his proposer, as the case may
be, shall, at the time of delivering to the returning officer
the nomination paper under sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the
Act also deliver to him an affidavit, sworn by the candidate
before a Magistrate of the first class or a Notary in Form 26.
Form 26 contains different nature of information which a
candidate is required to disclose or reveal in his affidavit.
Clause (5) of Form 26 provides for the following information to
be submitted by a candidate at the time of filing his
nomination/affidavit:
“FORM 26
.....
(5) Pending criminal cases.—
(i) I declare that there is no pending criminal case against
5
me.
(Tick this alternative, if there is no criminal case pending
against the Candidate and write NOT APPLICABLE against
alternative (ii) below)
OR
(ii) The following criminal cases are pending against me:
( If there are pending criminal cases against the candidate,
then tick this alternative and score off alternative (i)
above, and give details of all pending cases in the Table
below )
TABLE
(a) FIR No. with name and address of Police
station concerned
(b) Case No. with Name of the Court
(c) Sections of concerned Acts/Codes
involved
( give no. of the section, e.g. Section
......of IPC, etc .).
(d) Brief description of offence
(e) Whether charges have been framed
( mention YES or NO)
(f) If answer against item (e) above is YES,
then give the date on which charges were
framed
(g) Whether any Appeal/Application for
revision has been filed against the
proceedings ( Mention YES or NO)”
8. According to learned counsel representing the
respondents, the petitioner was required to disclose
information about all the pending criminal cases, at whatever
stages they are pending before any court. It is not that only
such cases will be disclosed wherein cognizance has been taken
or charges have been framed. It is submitted that any violation
of the 1961 Rules by non-disclosure which is otherwise
warranted under Clause (5) of Form 26, would entail rejection
of the nomination and the returning officer has not committed
any error of law.
9. In the matter of Ponnuswami (supra), this Court has held
thus:
“8. In construing this article, reference was made by
6
both the parties in the course of their arguments to the
other articles in the same Part, namely, Articles 324,
325, 326, 327 and 328. Article 324 provides for the
constitution and appointment of an Election Commissioner
to superintend, direct and control elections to the
legislatures; Article 325 prohibits discrimination
against electors on the ground of religion, race, caste
or sex; Article 326 provides for adult suffrage; Article
327 empowers Parliament to pass laws making provision
with respect to all matters relating to, or in
connection with, elections to the legislatures, subject
to the provisions of the Constitution; and Article 328
is a complementary article giving power to the State
Legislature to make provision with respect to all
matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to
the State Legislature. A notable difference in the
language used in Articles 327 and 328 on the one hand,
and Article 329 on the other, is that while the first
two articles begin with the words “subject to the
provisions of this Constitution”, the last article
begins with the words “notwithstanding anything in this
Constitution”. It was conceded at the Bar that the
effect of this difference in language is that whereas
any law made by Parliament under Article 327, or by the
State Legislatures under Article 328, cannot exclude the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution, that jurisdiction is excluded in regard to
matters provided for in Article 329.
9. Now, the main controversy in this appeal centres
round the meaning of the words “no election shall be
called in question except by an election petition” in
Article 329( b ), and the point to be decided is whether
questioning the action of the Returning Officer in
rejecting a nomination paper can be said to be
comprehended within the words, “no election shall be
called in question”. The appellant's case is that
questioning something which has happened before a
candidate is declared elected is not the same thing as
questioning an election, and the arguments advanced on
his behalf in support of this construction were these:
( 1 ) That the word “election” as used in Article
329( b ) means what it normally and etymologically
means, namely, the result of polling or the final
selection of a candidate;
( 2 ) That the fact that an election petition can be
filed only after polling is over or after a candidate
is declared elected, and what is normally called in
question by such petition is the final result, bears
out the contention that the word “election” can have
no other meaning in Article 329( b ) than the result of
polling or the final selection of a candidate;
( 3 ) That the words “arising out of or in connection
with” which are used in Article 324(1) and the words
“with respect to all matters relating to, or in
7
connection with” which are used in Articles 327 and
328, show that the Framers of the Constitution knew
that it was necessary to use different language when
referring respectively to matters which happen prior
to and after the result of polling, and if they had
intended to include the rejection of a nomination
paper within the ambit of the prohibition contained
in Article 329( b ) they would have used similar
language in that article; and
( 4 ) That the action of the Returning Officer in
rejecting a nomination paper can be questioned before
the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
for the following reason : Scrutiny of nomination
papers and their rejection are provided for in
Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act,
1951. Parliament has made this provision in exercise
of the powers conferred on it by Article 327 of the
Constitution which is “subject to the provisions of
the Constitution”. Therefore, the action of the
Returning Officer is subject to the extraordinary
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.
These arguments appear at first sight to be quite
impressive, but in my opinion there are weightier and
basically more important arguments in support of the
view taken by the High Court.
10. As we have seen the most important question for
determination is the meaning to be given to the word
“election” in Article 329( b ). That word has by long
usage in connection with the process of selection of
proper representatives in democratic institutions,
acquired both a wide and a narrow meaning. In the narrow
sense, it is used to mean the final selection of a
candidate which may embrace the result of the poll when
there is polling or a particular candidate being
returned unopposed when there is no poll. In the wide
sense, the word is used to connote the entire process
culminating in a candidate being declared elected.
*
12. It seems to me that the word “election” has been
used in Part XV of the Constitution in the wide sense,
that is to say, to connote the entire procedure to be
gone through to return a candidate to the legislature.
The use of the expression “conduct of elections” in
Article 324 specifically points to the wide meaning, and
that meaning can also be read consistently into the
other provisions which occur in Part XV including
Article 329( b ). That the word “election” bears this wide
meaning whenever we talk of elections in a democratic
country, is borne out by the fact that in most of the
books on the subject and in several cases dealing with
8
the matter, one of the questions mooted is, when the
election begins.
*
14. The next important question to be considered is what
is meant by the words “no election shall be called in
question”. A reference to any treatise on elections in
England will show that an election proceeding in that
country is liable to be assailed on very limited
grounds, one of them being the improper rejection of a
nomination paper. The law with which we are concerned is
not materially different, and we find that in Section
100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, one
of the grounds for declaring an election to be void is
the improper rejection of a nomination paper.
15. The question now arises whether the law of elections
in this country contemplates that there should be two
attacks on matters connected with election proceedings,
one while they are going on by invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution (the ordinary
jurisdiction of the courts having been expressly
excluded), and another after they have been completed by
means of an election petition. In my opinion, to affirm
such a position would be contrary to the scheme of Part
XV of the Constitution and the Representation of the
People Act, which, as I shall point out later, seems to
be that any matter which has the effect of vitiating an
election should be brought up only at the appropriate
stage in an appropriate manner before a Special Tribunal
and should not be brought up at an intermediate stage
before any court. It seems to me that under the election
law, the only significance which the rejection of a
nomination paper has consists in the fact that it can be
used as a ground to call the election in question.
Article 329( b ) was apparently enacted to prescribe the
manner in which and the stage at which this ground and
other grounds which may be raised under the law to call
the election in question, could be urged. I think it
follows by necessary implication from the language of
this provision that those grounds cannot be urged in any
other manner, at any other stage and before any other
court. If the grounds on which an election can be called
in question could be raised at an earlier stage and
errors, if any, are rectified, there will be no meaning
in enacting a provision like Article 329( b ) and in
setting up a Special Tribunal. Any other meaning
ascribed to the words used in the article would lead to
anomalies, which the Constitution could not have
contemplated, one of them being that conflicting views
may be expressed by the High Court at the pre-polling
stage and by the Election Tribunal which is to be an
9
independent body, at the stage when the matter is
brought up before it.
*
17. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, which
was passed by Parliament under Article 327 of the
Constitution, makes detailed provisions in regard to all
matters and all stages connected with elections to the
various legislatures in this country. That Act is
divided into 11 parts, and it is interesting to see the
wide variety of subjects they deal with. Part II deals
with “the qualifications and disqualifications for
membership”, Part III deals with the notification of
General Elections, Part IV provides for the
administrative machinery for the conduct of elections,
and Part V makes provisions for the actual conduct of
elections and deals with such matters as presentation of
nomination papers, requirements of a valid nomination,
scrutiny of nominations, etc., and procedure for polling
and counting of votes. Part VI deals with disputes
regarding elections and provides for the manner of
presentation of election petitions, the constitution of
Election Tribunals and the trial of election petitions.
Part VII outlines the various corrupt and illegal
practices which may affect the elections, and electoral
offences. Obviously, the Act is a self-contained
enactment so far as elections are concerned, which means
that whenever we have to ascertain the true position in
regard to any matter connected with elections, we have
only to look at the Act and the Rules made thereunder.
18. The provisions of the Act which are material to the
present discussion are Sections 80, 100, 105 and 170,
and the provisions of Chapter II of Part IV dealing with
the form of election petitions, their contents and the
reliefs which may be sought in them. Section 80, which
is drafted in almost the same language as Article
329( b ), provides that “no election shall be called in
question except by an election petition presented in
accordance with the provisions of this Part”. Section
100, as we have already seen, provides for the grounds
on which an election may be called in question, one of
which is the improper rejection of a nomination paper.
Section 105 says that “every order of the Tribunal made
under this Act shall be final and conclusive”. Section
170 provides that:
“170. Jurisdiction of civil courts barred .—No
civil court shall have jurisdiction to question
the legality of any action taken or of any
decision given by the Returning Officer or by
any other person appointed under this Act in
connection with an election.”
10
These are the main provisions regarding election matters
being judicially dealt with, and it should be noted that
there is no provision anywhere to the effect that
anything connected with elections can be questioned at
an intermediate stage.
*
20. It was argued that since the Representation of the
People Act was enacted subject to the provisions of the
Constitution, it cannot bar the jurisdiction of the High
Court to issue writs under Article 226 of the
Constitution. This argument however is completely shut
out by reading the Act along with Article 329( b ). It
will be noticed that the language used in that article
and in Section 80 of the Act is almost identical, with
this difference only that the article is preceded by the
words “notwithstanding anything in this Constitution”. I
think that those words are quite apt to exclude the
jurisdiction of the High Court to deal with any matter
which may arise while the elections are in progress.
*
22. It appears that similar language was used in the
earlier statutes, and it is noteworthy that it has never
been held in England that the improper rejection of a
nomination paper can be the subject of a writ of
certiorari or mandamus. On the other hand, it was
conceded at the Bar that the question of improper
rejection of a nomination paper has always been brought
up in that country before the appropriate tribunal by
means of an election petition after the conclusion of
the election. It is true that there is no direct
decision holding that the words used in the relevant
provisions exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court to
issue appropriate prerogative writs at an intermediate
stage of the election, but the total absence of any such
decision can be accounted for only on the view that the
provisions in question have been generally understood to
have that effect.
23. Our attention was drawn to Rule 13 of the Rules
appended to the Ballot Act of 1872 and a similar rule in
the Parliamentary Elections Rules of 1949, providing
that the decision of the Returning Officer disallowing
an objection to a nomination paper shall be final, but
allowing the same shall be subject to reversal on a
petition questioning the election or return. These Rules
however do not affect the main argument. I think it can
be legitimately stated that if words similar to those
used in Article 329( b ) have been consistently treated in
England as words apt to exclude the jurisdiction of the
courts including the High Court, the same consequence
must follow from the words used in Article 329( b ) of the
Constitution. The words “notwithstanding anything in
this Constitution” give to that article the same wide
11
and binding effect as a statute passed by a sovereign
legislature like the English Parliament.
24. It may be pointed out that Article 329( b ) must be
read as complementary to clause ( a ) of that article.
Clause ( a ) bars the jurisdiction of the courts with
regard to such law as may be made under Articles 327 and
328 relating to the delimitation of constituencies or
the allotment of seats to such constituencies. It was
conceded before us that Article 329( b ) ousts the
jurisdiction of the courts with regard to matters
arising between the commencement of the polling and the
final selection. The question which has to be asked is
what conceivable reason the legislature could have had
to leave only matters connected with nominations subject
to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226
of the Constitution. If Part XV of the Constitution is a
code by itself i.e. it creates rights and provides for
their enforcement by a Special Tribunal to the exclusion
of all courts including the High Court, there can be no
reason for assuming that the Constitution left one small
part of the election process to be made the subject-
matter of contest before the High Courts and thereby
upset the time schedule of the elections. The more
reasonable view seems to be that Article 329 covers all
“electoral matters”.
25. The conclusions which I have arrived at may be
summed up briefly as follows:
( 1 ) Having regard to the important functions which the
legislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it
has always been recognised to be a matter of first
importance that elections should be concluded as early
as possible according to time schedule and all
controversial matters and all disputes arising out of
elections should be postponed till after the elections
are over, so that the election proceedings may not be
unduly retarded or protracted.
( 2 ) In conformity with this principle, the scheme of the
election law in this country as well as in England is
that no significance should be attached to anything
which does not affect the “election”; and if any
irregularities are committed while it is in progress and
they belong to the category or class which, under the
law by which elections are governed, would have the
effect of vitiating the “election” and enable the person
affected to call it in question, they should be brought
up before a Special Tribunal by means of an election
petition and not be made the subject of a dispute before
any court while the election is in progress.
*
12
29. The points which emerge from this decision may be
stated as follows:
( 1 ) The right to vote or stand as a candidate for
election is not a civil right but is a creature of
statute or special law and must be subject to the
limitations imposed by it.
( 2 ) Strictly speaking, it is the sole right of the
legislature to examine and determine all matters
relating to the election of its own members, and if the
legislature takes it out of its own hands and vests in a
Special Tribunal an entirely new and unknown
jurisdiction, that special jurisdiction should be
exercised in accordance with the law which creates it.”
10. The principles laid down in Ponnuswami (supra) has been
followed by this Court in all election related disputes and
whenever an attempt is made to invoke this Court’s or the High
Court’s writ jurisdiction to interject during the process of
conduct of election, on every occasion, the Constitutional
Court has rejected such an attempt keeping in view the
principle contained in Article 329(b) of the Constitution of
India.
11. In a recent judgment, this Court in the matter of Poonam
6
vs. Dule Singh & Ors. , authored by one of us (Atul S.
Chandurkar, J.), had an occasion to deal with a similar case
concerning non-disclosure of previous conviction under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by a candidate
contesting election for the post of Councillor in a Nagar
Parishad, to eventually hold that under the applicable rule,
every candidate contesting elections is required to furnish
information as prescribed in the format under Rule 24-A(5) of
6
2025 INSC 1284
13
the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994.
12. It is vehemently put forth by Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi
that in a case of this nature where the illegality in rejection
of nomination is glaring and manifest, this Court must step in
to curb the injustice, otherwise the very sanctity of the
election process would be affected. However, this argument
cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down in Ponnuswami
(supra) . If this Court accepts such argument to find out such
glaring cases, which are required to be interfered with under
Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India and the other
set of cases in which the rejection is not so improper prima
facie relegating them to avail the remedy of filing election
petition, this Court would be reading some principle which is
not provided for under Article 329 of the Constitution of
India. We are afraid, any such interpretation, that in some
cases this Court can entertain a petition wherein a candidate’s
nomination paper has been improperly rejected, while leaving
some others to avail the remedy of filing an election petition
before the election tribunal, should not be encouraged, being
in direct conflict with the law laid down in Ponnuswami
(supra).
13. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain
this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in
view of express bar contained in Article 329(b) of the
Constitution of India; therefore, the writ petition fails and
is hereby dismissed.
14
14. Needless to say, any observation made herein concerning
the basis of rejection of petitioner’s nomination is only for
the purpose of appreciating the facts of the case and nothing
contained in this Order shall affect the election petition,
should any such election petition is filed by the petitioner or
any other person before the concerned High Court and the same
shall be decided on its own merits, in accordance with law.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………………………………J.
[PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA]
………………………………………………………J.
[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]
NEW DELHI;
June 12, 2026.
15