Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 707
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Meenakshi Natarajan – Petitioner
Versus
Election Commission Of India & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 766 of 2026
Decided On : 12-06-2026
For the Parties(s) : Mr. A. M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv.* Mr. Randeep Singh S, Adv. Mr. Muhammad Ali Khan, Adv. Mr. Omar Hoda, Adv. Mr. Uday Bhatia, Adv. Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.* Mr. Sanket Gupta, Adv. Mr. C. Siddharth Sarang, AOR Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Vats, Adv. Mr. D. S. Naidu, Sr. Adv.* Mr. Prateek Kumar, AOR Mr. Ashish Shukla, Adv. Ms. Simran Parmar, Adv. Ms. Soumya Goswami, Adv.
Constitutional courts lack jurisdiction to interfere with ongoing election processes, including the rejection of nomination papers, due to the bar under Article 329(b). Any grievance concerning electoral matters must be addressed through an election petition after the conclusion of the election.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 and Article 329(b) - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 33A - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - Rule 4A - Rejection of nomination paper - Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters - The election process cannot be challenged at an intermediate stage before any court, including the Supreme Court under Article 32 or High Court under Article 226, as the remedy lies through an election petition after the culmination of the election process. (Paras 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13)
(B) Election Law - Disclosure of criminal cases - Requirement for filing an affidavit as per prescribed forms - Non-disclosure or suppression of material information regarding pending criminal cases provides grounds for rejection of nomination. (Paras 2, 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
A candidate's nomination for a parliamentary election was rejected by the returning officer due to the failure to disclose a pending criminal case against the candidate in the mandatory affidavit. The candidate challenged this rejection directly by filing a writ petition, arguing that the suppression did not violate statutory disclosure requirements as charges had not yet been framed and that the constitutional bar on court interference in electoral matters should not apply to prevent manifest injustice.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the election process constitutes a complete self-contained code. The constitutional bar under Article 329(b) prohibits courts from interfering with election proceedings at intermediate stages. Any claim regarding the improper rejection of a nomination paper must be adjudicated through a post-election challenge via an election petition, as the law does not facilitate dual litigation during the electoral process.
Issues: Whether a writ petition is maintainable against the rejection of a nomination paper before the conclusion of the election process, and whether the alleged illegality of such rejection permits judicial intervention notwithstanding the constitutional bar.
Ratio Decidendi: The right to contest an election is a statutory right subject to specific limitations. Article 329(b) of the Constitution, read with the relevant electoral statute, explicitly excludes the jurisdiction of constitutional courts to intervene in ongoing election proceedings, including challenges to the rejection of nominations, to ensure the prompt and timely completion of the electoral schedule. Relief for such disputes must be pursued exclusively through an election petition after the election.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background: rejection of nomination for non-disclosure in form-26. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contentions regarding maintainability ofwrit petitions under article 32 regarding election disputes. (Para 4 , 5 , 8) |
| 3. statutory requirements for nomination disclosure and the judicial bar under article 329(b). (Para 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 4. immunity of election processes from intermediate court interference. (Para 10 , 12) |
| 5. dismissal of writ petition; requirement to file election petition for redressal. (Para 14 , 15) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioner would call in question the order passed by the Returning Officer on 09.06.2026, rejecting her nomination for a Rajya Sabha seat in the biennial election for the Rajya Sabha seats of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
2. The petitioner being a candidate belonging to Indian National Congress submitted her nomination; however, the same has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the nomination paper filed by the petitioner Smt. Meenakshi Natarajan as a candidate in the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sabha election, in the Form-26 Affidavit, she did not disclose the pendency of a criminal case against her, thereby suppressing material information by filing an incomplete affidavit. It is also mentioned that the Court has taken cognizance of the criminal complaint filed against the petitioner and summons have also been issued to her to appear before the Court and that the petitioner has also filed her statement before the said Magisterial Court, therefore, she has full knowledge about pendency of the case.
3. According to the petitioner, after the impugned order was passed by the Returning Officer, the petitioner approached the Election Commission of India; however, no orders have been passed by the Election Commission despite filing a written representation and arguing-in-person as well, before the Election Commission on 10.06.2026.
4. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner would submit, at the outset, that the bar under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India is not attracted, for the reason that the petitioner desires completion of the election process in a fair and transparent manner; and preferring this writ petition has no purpose or motive to thwart the election process. It is also submitted, referring to Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 19511[For short, “the 1951 Act”] that what is required under the Statute is of disclosure of any case where a candidate is accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case, in which a charge has been framed by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Since, in the case pending against the petitioner, cognizance is yet to be taken and charges are yet to be framed, there is no such violation of the provisions contained in Section 33A of the 1951 Act and as such rejection of nomination is ex facie illegal and manifestly arbitrary. It is also submitted, referring to the law laid down in Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., (1978) 1 SCC 405; Election Commission of India Through Secretary vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 216; and Manda Jaganath vs. K.S. Rathnam & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 492 that the Constitution does not contemplate a complete bar for entertaining an election related dispute, when the relief claimed in the petition is not for obstructing the process of election but for its smooth completion in the manner known to law under the 1951 Act.
5. Per contra, Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel, representing the private respondents and Shri Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned Senior Counsel, representing the Election Commission of India and Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, appearing for the Intervenor - State of Madhya Pradesh, would vehemently oppose, not only the prayer made in the writ petition but its very maintainability. According to them, the right to contest election being a statutory right, a
