Supreme Court Dismisses Congress Leader’s Challenge to Rajya Sabha Nomination Rejection in Madhya Pradesh

Overview The Supreme Court on 12 June 2026 dismissed a petition filed by Meenakshi Nataranda (Congress) against the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh . The two‑judge bench held that under Article 329(b) the Court has no jurisdiction to question the order of the Returning Officer . The only remedy, it said, is filing an election petition . Key Developments The bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and A.S. Chandurkar reiterated that courts cannot invoke writ jurisdiction during the election process. Meenakshi Nataranda’s nomination was rejected on the ground that she did not disclose a pending criminal case in Hyderabad in her election affidavit. The Representation of the People Act requires disclosure of cases where charges have been framed; senior counsel argued this was not met. BJP candidates Tarun Chugh , Rajneesh Agrawal and Mahesh Kewat were declared elected unopposed on 11 June 2026. The Court warned that creating a “glaring error” exception would amount to reading a non‑existent principle into Article 329. Important Facts Article 329(b) bars judicial interference in elections except through a post‑election petition. The RO’s order (9 June 2026) cited a Hyderabad court notice issued in October 2025 as the basis for rejection. Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi contended that the non‑disclosure was a “patent error” and that Section 33A of the RPA only demands disclosure of cases where charges are framed. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that the right to contest elections is a statutory right, not a fundamental right, and therefore cannot be enforced under Article 32. The Supreme Court clarified that its observations will not prejudice any future election petition in the concerned High Court. UPSC Relevance This judgment illustrates the constitutional balance between the judiciary and the electoral machinery. Aspirants should note how Article 329(b) limits judicial review, reinforcing the principle of free and fair elections. The case also highlights the procedural safeguards under the RPA and the role of the RO . Understanding these provisions is essential for GS‑2 (Polity) questions on electoral law and constitutional limits on courts. Way Forward Any aggrieved candidate must file an election petition in the appropriate High Court. The Election Commission should ensure timely communication of its decisions to avoid procedural lapses. Future litigants may seek clarification on the scope of "patent error" under Article 329(b) through legislative amendment rather than judicial reinterpretation.