From Our Legal Correspondent
New Delhi: The rejection of Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s nomination paper for the Rajya Sabha election from Madhya Pradesh has drawn attention to the application of disclosure norms under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA). The Returning Officer (RO) disqualified the papers on the ground that the candidate’s Form 26 affidavit contained a defect of substantial character due to the omission of details relating to a court notice. The Congress party has described the decision as inconsistent with legal provisions, while the RO maintained that the omission amounted to concealment of a material fact.
The scrutiny occurred on June 9, 2026. Natarajan, who was the All India Congress Committee (AICC) in-charge for Telangana, had indicated “not applicable” in the relevant column of her affidavit. This pertained to a private complaint filed in 2025 before a Hyderabad magistrate, in which a court notice was issued to her. No FIR had been registered by the police, and no formal cognizance or framing of charges had taken place at the time of filing the nomination. Following the rejection, the seats were filled by elected candidates.
Statutory Disclosure Obligations
Section 33A of the RPA, along with Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, requires candidates to submit an affidavit in Form 26 disclosing criminal antecedents. The prescribed particulars primarily cover:
- Cases in which a competent court has taken cognizance or framed charges in respect of offences punishable with imprisonment for two years or more.
- Details of convictions, if any.
Legal commentary and Election Commission of India (ECI) guidelines generally treat a mere court notice issued on a private complaint—prior to formal cognizance—as falling outside the strict category of a “pending criminal case” requiring mandatory disclosure. Natarajan’s representatives contended that the RO’s interpretation extended beyond the statutory requirements. The RO, however, noted that summons had been served and a written statement filed, treating the information as material.
Scope of Rejection Powers under Section 36
Section 36(4) of the RPA provides that a nomination shall not be rejected for a defect that is not of a substantial character. In Resurgence India v. Election Commission of India (2013), the Supreme Court directed that Returning Officers should ordinarily afford candidates an opportunity to rectify defects in affidavits, such as blank or improperly filled columns, during the scrutiny process. This balances the voter’s right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution with the need to avoid technical disqualifications.
At the same time, deliberate non-disclosure of information that is legally required can constitute a substantial defect justifying rejection. The determination of whether the pre-cognizance notice in this instance met that threshold forms the core of the ongoing legal debate.
Constitutional and Remedial Framework
Article 324 of the Constitution confers superintendence, direction, and control of elections on the Election Commission, requiring impartial and consistent application of rules. Article 329(b) restricts judicial intervention in electoral matters during the election process. Consequently, challenges to nomination rejections are typically addressed through an election petition in the High Court after the declaration of results, under Section 100(1)(c) of the RPA, which treats improper rejection of a nomination as a ground for declaring the election void.
Significance
This case illustrates the interpretive challenges surrounding disclosure obligations at the pre-cognizance stage and the extent of a Returning Officer’s discretion. Greater clarity in ECI guidelines on the treatment of private complaints and court notices could help reduce similar disputes in future elections. The final judicial determination in any post-election petition will clarify the application of these provisions, reinforcing the procedural integrity of the electoral process.
