The Congress on Wednesday met the Election Commission (EC) and sought immediate reversal of the rejection of senior leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s Rajya Sabha nomination, alleging that the Returning Officer (RO) had relied on a criminal case that did not exist in the eyes of law.
A high-level delegation led by AICC General Secretary (Organisation) K C Venugopal, which also included candidate Natrajan, senior Congress leaders Abhishek Singhvi, Jairam Ramesh, Bhupesh Baghel, Deepa Dasmunshi and Randeep Singh Surjewala, met Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and other Election Commissioners, arguing that the RO’s decision was legally unsustainable and had distorted the electoral process even before voting could take place.
Addressing the media after the meeting, Singhvi said the order was so flawed that it was akin to “writing two plus two equals seven”. He said Natarajan’s nomination had been rejected on the grounds that she failed to disclose a pending criminal case in her nomination papers.
Singhvi maintained that no criminal case was pending against Natarajan. He said she had only received a court notice asking her to appear and explain why cognisance should not be taken on a private complaint. Under criminal law, he said, a case comes into existence only after a magistrate takes cognisance.
“The magistrate has not taken cognisance. Without cognisance, there is no criminal case. Therefore, there was nothing for her to disclose,” Singhvi said.
Referring to Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, Singhvi said candidates are required to disclose only those criminal cases where the offence is punishable with more than two years’ imprisonment and where charges have already been framed by a court.
He said Natarajan’s case was nowhere near that stage. “First comes cognisance, then investigation, then chargesheet and finally framing of charges. The law requires disclosure only after charges have been framed,” he said.
The Congress told the EC that rejecting a nomination on such grounds created an uneven playing field and denied a candidate the opportunity to contest the election. The party argued that such actions were contrary to democratic principles and affected the fairness of the electoral process.
The delegation also urged the Commission to invoke its powers under Article 324 of the Constitution to correct what it described as a serious legal error. Singhvi said the EC was fully empowered to review and overturn decisions of Returning Officers and should not compel candidates to wait years for judicial remedies through election petitions.
Citing precedents from Haryana and Gujarat, where the Commission had intervened in matters relating to nominations and electoral procedures, the Congress submitted documents and legal notes to support its case.
With Wednesday being the last day for withdrawal of nominations, the party urged the EC to take an immediate decision.
Describing the RO’s order as “egregious”, “patently unlawful” and “without authority of law”, the Congress said the Election Commission must act swiftly to restore fairness to the electoral process and set aside the rejection of Natarajan’s nomination.
