Was Congress's Meenakshi Natarajan's Rajya Sabha nomination valid? What law says

The Election Commission’s decision to reject Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s nomination for the Rajya Sabha election has triggered a major political and legal controversy. Congress reacted sharply, calling the move "egregious" and a "subversion of democracy", and urged the Election Commission to roll back the decision. Natarajan also appeared before the Election Commission on Wednesday to present her case.

Natarajan’s Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh was rejected after the Returning Officer held that she had failed to disclose details of a pending court case in Telangana in her nomination affidavit. The BJP had objected to her nomination during scrutiny, alleging that she concealed material information related to the case.

Sources in the Congress legal team told India Today that the party has argued the alleged “summons” issued by a Telangana court was merely part of a pre-cognisance inquiry and did not amount to formal criminal proceedings against her. According to the party, there was no direct allegation against Natarajan in the complaint itself. The ECI’s final decision was awaited at the time of writing this report.

According to sources, Natarajan was named in a private complaint filed by a former Congress worker in Telangana. The complainant alleged that she had faced harassment and molestation by another former Congress worker. She further claimed that she had informed Natarajan, who was then the AICC in-charge for the state, but no action was taken against the accused.

A magistrate court in Hyderabad issued a notice to Natarajan in 2025 seeking her response to the complaint. Congress sources said the notice was issued under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and was only meant to secure her participation in the preliminary hearing. No further action has been taken by the trial court so far.

Party sources claimed the Returning Officer "appears to have confused this preliminary inquiry notice with a formal summons issued after cognisance of an offence", leading to the rejection of the nomination.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act mandates disclosure by election candidates only in two situations:

• If the candidate is accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment of two years or more in a pending case where charges have been framed by a competent court.
• If the candidate has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more.

Section 223 of the BNSS lays down the procedure for a magistrate conducting a preliminary inquiry on a private criminal complaint. The provision states that no cognisance of an offence can be taken without first giving the accused an opportunity to be heard.

The magistrate is required to examine the complainant and witnesses before deciding whether further proceedings are warranted.

In the Meenakshi Natarajan case, the Congress has argued that the proceedings were only at this preliminary stage.

Speaking to India Today, senior advocate Gautam Narayan said, "The information that is mandatorily required to be disclosed relates to cases where charges have been framed."

Narayan pointed out that Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act must be read with Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, which prescribes Form 26 for disclosure affidavits.

According to him, Form 26 appears to widen the scope by requiring disclosure even at the FIR stage. However, he cited the Karnataka High Court’s 2024 judgment in the BG Uday case, which held that the form cannot expand the scope of the parent legislation.

"The legal position under the statute is that only cases where charges have been framed are required to be disclosed," Narayan said, adding that the Supreme Court later dismissed a review plea against the Karnataka High Court verdict.

He further argued that there was no obligation on Natarajan to disclose the present proceedings because:

• No FIR has been registered.
• The court has not taken cognisance of the offence.
• No charges have been framed.

Narayan described proceedings under Section 223 BNSS as equivalent to a pre-cognisance inquiry under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.

"This is still a pre-cognisance stage. Pre-summoning evidence has to be considered. A notice under Section 223 BNSS is not equivalent to an FIR," he said.

He also referred to a January 2026 Delhi High Court judgment dismissing an election petition against AAP leader Manish Sisodia over alleged non-disclosure of an FIR.

The Delhi High Court had observed that mere registration of an FIR does not, by itself, imply that a criminal case is pending against a person for the purposes of disclosure under Section 33A of the RP Act.

The court further held that the obligation to disclose arises only after charges are framed or cognisance of the offence is taken by the court.

The High Court also noted that Parliament had consciously used the expression, “in a pending case in which a charge has been framed by the court of competent jurisdiction” while drafting Section 33A of the RP Act.

However, according to RK Singh, a Supreme Court lawyer, the legal steps already taken establish that Natarajan has joined the criminal legal process.

Singh, an expert on constitutional and electoral processes, argued that the magistrate had taken cognisance of the complaint and issued a notice to the Congress leader in September 2025 under Section 223 of the Indian Security Code. He further pointed out that Natarajan’s lawyer appeared before the court and filed a response in October.

"This clearly means that Meenakshi Natarajan has joined the criminal legal process," Singh argued, adding that the case has been pending since then.

SECTION 33A OF THE RP ACT

Section 33A states that a candidate must disclose whether they are accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment of two years or more in a pending case where charges have been framed by a competent court; or They have been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more.

In Natarajan's case, the dispute before the ECI is whether the Hyderabad court's notice under Section 223 BNSS amounted to a disclosable criminal case or remained only a preliminary inquiry notice.