Last Updated:
The returning officer (RO) of Madhya Pradesh rejected Congress pick Meenakshi Natarajan’s nomination on the grounds that she failed to disclose an offence against her
Meenakshi Natarajan
As Madhya Pradesh watches with intrigue the unfolding Rajya Sabha election row between Congress and BJP, the Election Commission is tasked with a question that could have wider implications—Should a candidate declare complaints against him/her even when no cognizance has been taken?
A senior Congress delegation with KC Venugopal, Jairam Ramesh and legal eagles like Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Vivek Tankha, knocked on the EC’s door with this question on Wednesday.
Cognizance vs Court Notice
The returning officer (RO) of Madhya Pradesh rejected Congress pick Meenakshi Natarajan’s nomination on the grounds that she failed to disclose an offence against her. The case in question is a private complaint filed by a former associate of Natarajan, A Srilatha, in a Telangana court in 2022. The complainant had alleged abuse by Natarajan and the court had asked her to appear in the matter in September 2025. The RO, in his order, had said that Natarajan failed to disclose this in Form 26 of her nomination.
Congress, however, argued that since the court had not taken cognizance of the private complaint, Natarajan was not required to disclose the proceedings. “Form 26 asks the candidate to disclose the case number and the sections if an offence is being probed against him/her. In this case there is no FIR… hence no case number. What was Ms Natarajan supposed to disclose?” Rajya Sabha MP Vivek Tankha told CNN-News18.
ALSO READ | Last-Minute Jolt: How A Rajya Sabha Nomination Rejection Made Congress Recall A Flight From Runway
Tankha pointed out that under BNS Section 223(2), a court issues notice to respondents in a private complaint case and a decision on cognizance is taken only after hearing both sides.
Singhvi, who spoke before the EC, added: “The RO’s order is vitiated. There is no criminal case pending against Natarajan. No cognizance was taken. EC rules under 33A say that candidate should reveal case where charges have been framed. RO in his order has used the word “sangyan” which means cognizance ….this (RO’s charge is factually incorrect.”
EC’s Power Under Constitution
Legal experts said prima facie, the Returning Officer is the last word on nomination scrutiny. However, under Article 324 of the Indian Constitution, the EC has overarching power to hold and supervise polls. EC sources told CNN-News18 that the commission, which heard the Congress delegation for more than 30 minutes, did not make any observation about the charges made against the RO. “The commission is examining the representation made by the Congress delegation… an order will be issued after detailed scrutiny,” EC officials said.
Clock Ticking For Natarajan
While EC scrutinises the legal position on the “cognizance vs complaint debate”, the clock is ticking for Meenakshi Natarajan. The last date for nomination withdrawal is Thursday. That means any legal recourse window is available for only 24 hours.
“The EC has overarching powers. We have come on the last day of nomination, we hope EC will uphold the Constitution. There is precedent of EC overruling the RO in Haryana and Gujarat earlier,” Singhvi told the media.
The party is contemplating approaching the Supreme Court in case the EC order does not go in its favour but Tankha expressed hope of a positive decision. “I am very hopeful that EC will use its power under Article 324 and set right the wrong done by RO,” he said.
About the Author
Arunima is Editor (Home Affairs) and covers strategic, security and political affairs. From the Ukraine-Russia War to the India-China stand-off in Ladakh to India-Pak clashes, she has reported from gr…Read More
Read More
