Skip to main content

PUCL, activists call rejection of Natarajan’s nomination ‘legally untenable’

By A Representative 
The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), along with several civil society organizations, legal professionals, academics and activists, has submitted an urgent petition to the Election Commission of India (ECI) challenging the rejection of Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan's nomination for the Rajya Sabha Biennial Election 2026 from Madhya Pradesh.
In the petition addressed to the Chief Election Commissioner, the signatories have sought immediate intervention under Article 324 of the Constitution to set aside the June 9 order of the Returning Officer, Arvind Sharma, who rejected Natarajan’s nomination on the ground that she had allegedly failed to disclose a criminal case in her election affidavit.
The petition argues that the case cited against Natarajan is a private complaint filed under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in which no court has taken cognizance of any offence. According to the petitioners, a summons issued to Natarajan was merely part of the mandatory pre-cognizance procedure and cannot be treated as evidence that cognizance had been taken by the Magistrate. They contend that several recent judicial pronouncements have clarified that disclosure obligations arise only after cognizance of an offence is taken or charges are framed.
The petition further states that under Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, candidates are required to disclose only those criminal cases in which a competent court has taken cognizance or framed charges. Since neither condition applies in Natarajan’s case, the petitioners maintain that no disclosure obligation existed.
The signatories have also asserted that Natarajan was not named as an accused in the complaint and that no specific criminal offence was alleged against her. They argue that she was merely listed as a respondent for the purpose of being heard under the BNSS procedure before any decision on cognizance.
Describing the Returning Officer’s decision as “manifestly erroneous” and contrary to settled legal principles, the petition claims that the rejection effectively disenfranchises 62 Congress MLAs in the Madhya Pradesh Assembly who, according to the petition, constitute a sufficient strength to elect her to the Upper House.
Invoking the Election Commission’s plenary powers under Article 324, the petition urges the Commission to restore Natarajan’s candidature, direct the Returning Officer to follow the established legal position regarding candidate disclosures, and take all necessary steps to safeguard the integrity of the electoral process.
The petition has been signed by PUCL President Kavita Srivastava and General Secretary V. Suresh, along with prominent activists and public figures including Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey, Shankar Singh, Meera Sanghamitra and several others from civil society organizations across the country. 

Comments

Post a Comment

TRENDING

Swaminarayan, untouchability and the 'we are not Hindu' argument

By Rajiv Shah   Following my blog on why the Eiffel Tower authorities should take all the blame for giving in to the Swaminarayan sadhus ’ bizarre demand to “invisibilise” women, including its female staff, during their visit to the internationally renowned Paris tourist centre on September 5, an interesting comment by one of the top academics drew my attention to something I vaguely knew about one of India’s most powerful and richest religious sects.
Post a Comment
»

From margins to microphones: The rise of Dalit hip-hop in India

By Tersina Maria Toppo*  A protest does not always arrive as a slogan shouted from a street corner. Sometimes, it arrives on a beat. A microphone replaces the megaphone, a music video becomes a public square, and the smartphone becomes the space where a history once pushed to the margins is narrated, debated, and shared.
Post a Comment
»

Xi Jinping’s visit to USA: Recognition that China can't be contained?

By Vijay Prashad   President Xi Jinping’s forthcoming visit to the United States must be understood as more than an encounter between two heads of state, but it must be seen as an encounter between two possible futures. In one future, the United States imposes a spiral of confrontation against China. Trade disputes harden into economic warfare, then economic warfare intensifies into technological blockades, technological blockades produce military encirclement, and finally military encirclement creates incidents, and incidents the danger of becoming an unimaginable war.
Post a Comment
»