On the other side, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the three BJP Rajya Sabha candidates from Madhya Pradesh, questioned the maintainability of the writ petition. He argued that the right to contest an election is a statutory right, not a fundamental right. Therefore, he asserted that such a right cannot be enforced through a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, relying on previous Supreme Court judgments that support this distinction.

Context of the Nomination Rejection

Ms. Natarajan, who was the Congress party’s sole candidate for one of the three Rajya Sabha seats from Madhya Pradesh, had approached the Supreme Court challenging a June 9 order by the Returning Officer and Madhya Pradesh Assembly Principal Secretary Arvind Sharma. The order rejected her nomination papers based on allegations that she failed to disclose details of a criminal case pending before a court in Hyderabad in her election affidavit.

The objection was raised by Mr. Mahesh Kewat, one of the BJP candidates, and BJP State general secretary Rahul Kothari. They alleged that Ms. Natarajan had submitted an incomplete Form 26 affidavit, concealing material facts related to court proceedings. Specifically, the Returning Officer held that her affidavit did not disclose a notice issued to her by a Hyderabad court in October 2025. The officer concluded that she had concealed these facts, leading to the rejection of her candidature.

The criminal case in question arose from a complaint filed by a former associate of a senior Congress politician. The complainant alleged that she had been subjected to abuse, coercion, intimidation, and exploitation during a personal relationship that spanned several months. The case is currently at the stage of consideration of charges. While Ms. Natarajan is not an accused in these proceedings, her name appears in a separate private complaint filed by the woman before a Hyderabad court in August 2025.

The Congress party has maintained that Ms. Natarajan was merely a respondent in the proceedings, not an accused. They noted that no FIR was registered pursuant to her response to the complaint. According to the party, a pre-cognisance notice cannot be treated as a pending criminal case requiring disclosure under election laws. Despite these defenses, the Returning Officer’s order stood, leading to the current legal battle.

Electoral Outcome and Procedural Finality

Following the dismissal of the plea, the legal pathway for Ms. Natarajan to contest the specific Rajya Sabha seats via this constitutional route was closed. The bench’s ruling underscored the strict interpretation of constitutional provisions designed to prevent prolonged litigation during active electoral processes. The court’s refusal to intervene meant that the administrative decisions of the Returning Officer remained valid for the purpose of the election timeline.

Meanwhile, the BJP candidates Tarun Chugh, Rajneesh Agrawal, and Mahesh Kewat were declared elected unopposed to the three Rajya Sabha seats from the state on Thursday. This declaration occurred prior to the Supreme Court’s final dismissal but was upheld by the court’s ruling, which affirmed that judicial interference in the nomination rejection process was not permissible under the current constitutional framework. The decision reinforces the precedent that election disputes regarding nominations are typically reserved for High Courts through election petitions rather than the Supreme Court under Article 32.

Supreme Court Reinforces Electoral Legal Boundaries

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of Ms. Natarajan’s plea serves as a significant precedent for future electoral disputes in India. By strictly applying Article 329, the court has reaffirmed that once a returning officer rejects a nomination, the remedy does not lie in constitutional writs before the Supreme Court or High Courts during the election process. This ruling likely discourages similar last-minute interventions in future Rajya Sabha election cycles, encouraging candidates to resolve nomination issues at the lower administrative or judicial levels earlier. The long-term impact suggests a more rigid adherence to statutory timelines and procedures, potentially reducing political litigation during active campaigns but raising questions about the accessibility of justice for candidates facing procedural rejections. The immediate effect is the confirmation of the BJP candidates' victories, highlighting the finality of the electoral administration's decisions when backed by constitutional barriers to judicial review.