Leaving aside the politics of
@BJP4India and
@INCIndia, the case of Meenakshi Natarajan represents a complete travesty of justice and fair play by the entire system, cutting across all pillars of democracy.
✅ The Returning Officer rejected her nomination in blatant violation of Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, read with Section 210 & 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
✅ On 11.06.2026, despite fervent pleas made by
@DrAMSinghvi,
@ECISVEEP sat on the judgment, and the Supreme Court declined to intervene even for a day till proper hearing. With no interim order by the Apex Court or the ECI, the Returning Officer declared the result!
✅ The matter was heard by the Supreme Court this forenoon. However, without examining the apparent illegality in the Returning Officer's order, the petition was dismissed in terms of the attached order on the ground that Article 329 bars judicial intervention after the declaration of results and that only an Election Petition can now be filed.
✅ While the fate of the case was effectively sealed when the Supreme Court declined to stay the declaration of the result, it was surprising to hear a legal luminary of Mr. Mukul Rohatgi's stature argue that the description of an entry in Form 26 overrides Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951!!
✅ Let me attempt to demonstrate why that contention is untenable. Form 26 was prescribed under Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, which themselves derive their authority from the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Yet it was implicitly argued that Entry 5(ii) of Form 26 overrides Section 33A of the parent statute!!
✅ Moreover, even after Section 33A and Rule 4A were introduced in August–September 2002,
@SpokespersonECI, through its letter dated 10.09.2012, categorically clarified that Entry 5(ii) covers only those cases in which cognizance has been taken by a competent court. That condition was clearly not applicable in the case of
@MNatarajanINC.
✅ Appearing virtually from London, Mr. Rohatgi argument, that a candidate's right to contest elections is merely a statutory right and not afundamental right, may hold relevance in normal circumstances. However, this was no ordinary case. By adopting a perverse interpretation of Section 33A, the Returning Officer descended to the nadir of partisan conduct and effectively denied the candidate the equal protection of the law guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. In this case, Section 210 read with 223 of BNSS makes it conclusively fall beyond the purview of Entry 5(ii) of Form 26.
I would be happy to be corrected by anyone looking at facts and laws objectively. I am sure that
@sardesairajdeep @_YogendraYadav @KapilSibal @adrspeaks @Mukul_Rohatgi @harishsalvee et al will appreciate that, by not intervening in time,
#GyaneshKumar led ECI and the top court just let the case shift from Article 32 to Article 329 and the Returning Officer hide under it.
J Mishra; you are relying on ECI order for a remedy under article 32. Mylords should not allow this injustice to go on.
Order: petitioner challenges order passed by RO rejecting her nomination on 9.6.26 for Rajya Sabha seats in the byeelections for MP. petitioner being a candidate belonging to INC submitted her nomination however it has been rejected by impugned order on grounds that nomination papers filed by her in the form 26 she didn't disclose the court case, thereby filling incomplete affidavit. it is also mentioned that the court has taken cognisance of compliant filed and summons have also been issued for her to appear therefore the case is pending before the court and petition filed her writen statement before magistrial corut and therefore she has full knowledge.
the petitioner after impugned order was passed by RO, she approached ECI however no orders have been passed despite filing written representation and arguring in person before ECI. Dr Singhi would submit at the outset that the bar under 329 is not attracted for the reasons as petitioner desires completiion of election process in fair manner and filing this petition she has no purpose to disturb the election process.