Natarajan case raises questions over electoral disclosure rules
The Supreme Court of India’s dismissal of Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s challenge to the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination has highlighted a possible conflict between the Representation of the People Act and the wider disclosure requirement in Form 26. The matter also tests the limits of judicial intervention during elections.
The Supreme Court’s dismissal of Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s challenge to the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination has raised broader questions about candidates’ disclosure obligations and the scope of judicial review during an election. Natarajan’s nomination for the Rajya Sabha election from Madhya Pradesh was rejected after the Returning Officer found that she had not disclosed a pending criminal complaint in her Form 26 affidavit. The complaint, filed in 2025, alleged that she failed to act against a party leader accused of misconduct.
The dispute centres on the relationship between Section 33-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and Form 26, the affidavit candidates must submit with their nomination papers. Section 33-A requires disclosure of cases involving offences punishable by at least two years’ imprisonment when charges have been framed. However, a 2018 amendment to Form 26 requires candidates to disclose all pending criminal cases, whether or not charges have been framed.
The apparent difference has prompted questions about whether delegated legislation can expand a substantive obligation created by Parliament. The filing of Form 26 is required by Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules. The legal argument described in the source material is that the rule is procedural and cannot independently create wider disclosure duties than those set by the parent statute.
The Court also relied on the constitutional principle that courts should not interrupt an election once the process has begun. Under the precedent in N.P. Ponnuswami v.
Returning Officer, an election petition is generally the available remedy after the election. Natarajan was given liberty to challenge the rejection through an election petition under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act. The case therefore leaves unresolved whether constitutional courts should intervene where a Returning Officer’s decision is alleged to be manifestly arbitrary or beyond jurisdiction.
This independently written report is based on information supplied by the named publisher. Vertrix News has not independently verified the source report.