New Delhi: Meenakshi Natarajan of the Indian National Congress has moved the Supreme Court after her nomination for the Rajya Sabha elections from Madhya Pradesh was rejected. The case is expected to be mentioned for urgent listing on Thursday morning.
The Returning Officer, Arvind Sharma, reportedly rejected Natarajan’s nomination on the ground that she had “hidden” details of a criminal case from Telangana in her nomination papers, as reported by Live Law.in
The matter involves private complaint no. 4472/2025, filed by a former Congress worker, A. Srilatha, before the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, in which Natarajan is listed as Respondent no. 4.
In the complaint, Srilatha has alleged molestation against the person named as Respondent 1, and has accused Natarajan and others of failing to act despite repeated complaints while serving as senior party functionaries. Natarajan is the All India Con
gress Committee in charge for the Congress’s affairs in Telangana.
Natarajan has reportedly received a notice under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in relation to that complaint. Under that provision, no cognizance of a private complaint can be taken without hearing the parties. Accordingly, the Magistrate asked Natarajan to appear and explain why cognizance should not be taken against her as an accused.
The INC posted on X that it has filed a complaint with the Election Commission contesting the rejection of Natarajan’s nomination. The party said Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act obliges disclosure only when a charge is formally framed and the alleged offence carries more than two years’ imprisonment.
The INC said Natarajan was merely issued a court notice and that the court has not yet taken cognizance of the matter.
“Ms. Natarajan only received a notice to appear before the court and explain why cognizance should not be taken. That means the notice she received was before any cognizance was taken. Without cognizance, no criminal case exists in the eyes of the law. There is no criminal case merely because I allege something against somebody else without cognizance being taken. They have rejected Ms. Natarajan’s nomination despite the non-existence of even cognizance, which means there was no criminal case that she could have disclosed. Whereas Section 33A, says that after cognizance is taken, there will be an investigation. After the investigation, there will be a charge sheet,” the party said.