समीक्षा
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.
मुख्य विकास
- 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.
महत्वपूर्ण तथ्य
- 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 fu