look news india
From the political circles of the country to the legal circles, there is a huge stir regarding the Rajya Sabha elections of Madhya Pradesh. After the nomination of senior Congress leader and Rajya Sabha candidate Meenakshi Natarajan from Madhya Pradesh was rejected by the Returning Officer, this entire high-profile controversy has reached the main door of the country’s biggest court i.e. the Supreme Court. Congress candidate Meenakshi Natarajan has filed a special petition in the Supreme Court, terming the decision to cancel her nomination completely illegal. On Thursday, a special request was made for an immediate hearing on this sensitive matter, after which, considering the seriousness of the matter, the Supreme Court has completely agreed to hold a detailed hearing today i.e. on Friday, June 12, 2026. In this special digital report of Editor Jeet Kumar, know how this legal battle can completely change the electoral mathematics of Rajya Sabha seat of Madhya Pradesh.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi gave sharp arguments, Supreme Court refused to put interim stay on the announcement of election results.
Senior and honorable judges of the Supreme Court, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Atul S. The country’s veteran and well-known lawyer Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared on behalf of Meenakshi Natarajan before Chandurkar’s division bench. During the debate in the court, Singhvi strongly demanded that until the Supreme Court of the country conducts a legal investigation into this entire matter, a complete interim stay should be imposed on the declaration of the final results of the Rajya Sabha elections being held for this seat. However, the Supreme Court flatly refused to immediately impose any interim stay on the declaration of election results. The court gave clear instructions to the petitioner that provided all the technical flaws and shortcomings of the petition are completely removed by the morning, then the court will hear it in detail today.
Serious questions raised on court interference in the middle of the election process, Supreme Court asked – how will this petition be hearable?
During the preliminary hearing held on Thursday, the Supreme Court bench raised very serious and tough questions on the maintainability, i.e. legal validity, of this petition. The division bench directly asked Meenakshi Natarajan’s lawyer that when the entire constitutional process of elections in the country is going on, then how can this special petition, brought right in the middle of the election process, be considered maintainable under the law. However, after senior lawyer Singhvi fully explained the urgency of the case and its political importance, the court agreed to hear the entire dispute finally on Friday.
It is wrong to reject nomination under the guise of clarification of criminal case, Singhvi cited the Representation of the People Act.
Presenting arguments in the court on behalf of the Congress candidate, Abhishek Manu Singhvi completely rejected the decision of the Returning Officer (RO), calling it a misinterpretation of the law. He mainly argued that the cancellation of nomination forms by the Returning Officer in the garb of non-explanation of an alleged criminal case is completely unfair and against the principles of natural justice. Singhvi, clearly citing the sections of the country’s ‘Representation of the People Act’, told the court that according to the law, any candidate has to compulsorily mention in his election affidavit only those criminal cases in which there is a strict provision of a jail sentence of at least two years or more. He claimed that in the case of Meenakshi Natarajan, there is not even a single criminal case registered, but the concerned court has issued a general summons only on the basis of a complaint.
Know on the basis of which complaint the Returning Officer had taken major action on the objection of BJP candidate Mahesh Kewat.
This entire high-profile political controversy had started when during the scrutiny of nominations for the Rajya Sabha elections, the Returning Officer had completely rejected the nomination papers of Meenakshi Natarajan saying that she had hidden information by submitting an incomplete affidavit to the Election Commission. In fact, there was no mention of any previous complaint filed in a local court in Telangana in the mandatory ‘Form 26’ to be submitted along with the nomination. Madhya Pradesh’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate Mahesh Kevat, noticing this technical flaw, had lodged a serious complaint in writing with the Returning Officer. Based on this complaint, the election officer had rejected the nomination of the Congress candidate. On the other hand, the lawyer appearing for the Election Commission also strongly opposed this mention in the court and said that no advance copy of this petition has been submitted to the Election Commission by the Congress. Now the eyes of the entire country are fixed on the decision coming from the Supreme Court today.