In a major setback to senior Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan, the Supreme Court on Friday dismissed her writ petition challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha candidature from Madhya Pradesh.
"We are sorry. We are not inclined to entertain the petition. The case is hereby dismissed,” said a two-judge Bench of the apex court, comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice A S Chandurkar.
The Bench, however, granted liberty to raise the challenge in an election petition filed in terms of the Representation of the People (RP) Act.
Notably, the apex court did not agree with the argument and submission of senior lawyer Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi that Article 32 can be invoked to cure glaring errors in the rejection of nomination.
Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi is appearing for the petitioner, Natarajan.
"If the Court accepts such arguments to find out glaring cases which are required to be interfered with under Article 32/226, and the other sets of cases, where the rejection is not so improper prima facie to relegate them to election petitions, this Court would be reading some principle which is not provided for under Article 329. We are afraid that any such interpretation that in some of the matters this Court can interfere while leaving some others to avail the remedy of the election tribunal cannot be encouraged," the Bench said.
It is to be noted that the senior Congress leader, Natarajan's candidature was rejected by the returning officer and Madhya Pradesh assembly principal secretary Arvind Sharma on June 9. Following this, she moved the top court on Wednesday seeking relief.
During the hearing on Friday in the top court, Dr Singhvi argued that the returning officer acted 'arbitrarily'.
Dr Singhvi contended that in the new law, Parliament has consciously introduced a proviso requiring that before cognisance is taken, the proposed accused must be heard. "Without cognisance, there is no criminal proceeding in the eyes of law," he argued.
Dr Singhvi also pointed out that no cognisance had been taken in the said case and only a pre-cognisance summons under Section 223 BNSS had been served on her.
"Under Section 33A of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, only criminal cases in which cognisance has been taken are required to be disclosed," he argued.
Dr Singhvi said there was no criminal case pending against Natarajan that she was mandated to disclose in her nomination papers.
He said the Returning Officer (RO) had exceeded his authority and acted arbitrarily in rejecting her nomination.