Meenakshi Natarajan of the Indian National Congress has moved the Supreme Court, challenging the rejection of her nomination for the Rajya Sabha elections from Madhya Pradesh.
The matter is likely to be mentioned today morning for urgent listing.
Reportedly, Natarajan's application was rejected by Returning Officer Arvind Sharma, following allegations that she had "hidden" details of a criminal case pending against her in Telangana in the nomination papers.
The case in question is a private complaint no 4472/2025 filed former Congress worker, A. Srilatha from Telengana before the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, where Natarajan is arrayed as Respondent no. 4.
In her complaint, she reportedly made allegations of molestation against the accused person, who is named as Respondent 1 and against Natarajan and others for failing to take action despite repeated complaints as senior party functionaries. It may be noted that Natarajan is the All India Congress Committee in charge for Congress of Telangana.
Natarajan has reportedly received notice under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita on the complaint. As per this provision, no cognizance on the private complaint can be taken without hearing the parties. In light of this, Natarajan was called by the Magistrate to answer why the cognizance should not be taken against as an accused.
On X(formerly Twitter), INC tweeted that they have approached the Election Commission against the rejection of Natarajan's candidature. It has been said that, as per Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, disclosure is required to be made only in those cases where the punishment is more than 2 years and only in those cases where charges have been framed.
INC has said Natarajan has only received a notice to appear before the Court, the cognisance of which has not been taken.
"Ms. Natarajan only received a notice to appear before the court and explain why cognizance should not be taken. That means the notice she received was before any cognizance was taken. Without cognizance, no criminal case exists in the eyes of the law. There is no criminal case merely because I allege something against somebody else without cognizance being taken.
They have rejected Ms. Natarajan's nomination despite the non-existence of even cognizance, which means there was no criminal case that she could have disclosed. Whereas Section 33A, says that after cognizance is taken, there will be an investigation. After the investigation, there will be a charge sheet," the party said.
Case Details : Meenakshi Natarajan v. Election Commission of India | Diary No.36330/2026