“The Election Commission’s role is to facilitate participation of as many candidates as possible — not to eliminate candidates on doubtful grounds. A returning officer conducts only a summary inquiry.” — Retired senior bureaucrat, quoted on the RO’s limited scrutiny power
The rejection of the Rajya Sabha nomination of senior Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan from Madhya Pradesh on 9 June 2026 has brought renewed attention to the legal and constitutional framework governing disqualification of parliamentary candidatures in India. The Returning Officer (RO) rejected her nomination during scrutiny, citing an incomplete Form 26 affidavit — specifically, the alleged non-disclosure of a private complaint pending before a court in Hyderabad.
The rejection handed the BJP a clean sweep of all three Rajya Sabha seats from Madhya Pradesh in the 18 June 2026 elections. Congress challenged the decision in the Supreme Court on 11 June 2026, and Telangana Police stated no registered criminal case (FIR) existed against Natarajan — raising sharp questions about whether the RO’s exercise of quasi-judicial power was legally sustainable. The case is a live examination of nomination scrutiny law, Form 26 affidavit requirements, and the crucial distinction between a pre-cognisance complaint and a pending criminal case.
📜 Structure and Composition of the Rajya Sabha
The Rajya Sabha — formally the Council of States — is the Upper House of India’s bicameral Parliament. Unlike the Lok Sabha, its members are not directly elected by citizens. They are chosen by indirect election through the elected members of State Legislative Assemblies, as provided under Article 80 of the Constitution.
Article 80 lays down the maximum strength at 250 members:
- Up to 238 elected representatives of States and Union Territories
- 12 members nominated by the President from persons distinguished in literature, science, art, and social service
Current strength: 245 members — 229 representing States, 4 representing Union Territories (Delhi, Puducherry, Jammu & Kashmir), and 12 nominated by the President. Seat allocation is specified in the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, broadly proportional to each State’s population.
The Rajya Sabha is a permanent body — not subject to dissolution. Members serve six-year terms, and approximately one-third retires every two years. Elections are conducted by the Election Commission of India under Proportional Representation by means of Single Transferable Vote (STV).
Voting is by open ballot — MLAs must show their marked ballot to their party agent before depositing it. This was mandated by the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 2003 and upheld in Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006), which held that open ballot strengthens democratic transparency without violating the Constitution’s basic structure.
Think of Lok Sabha as a class where students (voters) directly elect their class monitor. Rajya Sabha is like a school council where only elected class monitors (MLAs) — not students — vote to pick representatives. This indirect election is why state strength in Rajya Sabha roughly matches population — bigger states have more MLAs, so more voting power.
| Feature | Lok Sabha | Rajya Sabha |
|---|---|---|
| Election Method | Direct election by citizens (FPTP) | Indirect election by MLAs (STV) |
| Article | Article 81 | Article 80 |
| Maximum Strength | 552 (530 + 20 + 2) | 250 (238 + 12) |
| Min. Age | 25 years (Article 84) | 30 years (Article 84) |
| Dissolution | Can be dissolved by President | Permanent body — cannot be dissolved |
| Term | 5 years | 6 years (1/3 retires every 2 years) |
🌍 Election Context: Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sabha 2026
The June 2026 Rajya Sabha biennial elections were notified on 1 June 2026, with the schedule: last date for nominations — 8 June; scrutiny — 9 June; last date for withdrawal — 11 June; polling (where necessary) — 18 June 2026.
Three Rajya Sabha seats were at stake in Madhya Pradesh. The BJP holds a comfortable majority in the 230-member State Assembly (effective strength: 229). The STV quota required 58 first-preference votes per seat (229 ÷ 4 = 57.25, +1 = 58). The BJP was positioned to win two seats comfortably; the Congress expected to win the third based on its assembly numbers. BJP fielded three candidates: General Secretary Tarun Chugh, state unit secretary Rajneesh Agrawal, and MP Fishermen Welfare Board Chairman Mahesh Kewat (fielded for the seat where Congress was competitive).
Meenakshi Natarajan (born 23 July 1973, Nagda, Ujjain district) is a post-graduate in Biochemistry with an LLB degree. She served as MP from Mandsaur in the 15th Lok Sabha (2009–2014). At the time of nomination, she was the AICC in-charge for Telangana (appointed February 2025) — a close associate of Rahul Gandhi and permanent invitee to the Congress Working Committee (CWC).
⚖️ The Nomination Rejection: What Happened on 9 June 2026
On scrutiny day (9 June), BJP candidate Mahesh Kewat filed a written objection with RO Arvind Sharma, alleging that Natarajan had concealed a pending criminal matter in her Form 26 affidavit. After a summary inquiry, the RO rejected her nomination.
The “criminal matter” in question was Private Complaint No. 4472/2025 filed before the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, by A. Srilatha — a former Congress worker. The complaint alleged that Natarajan (as AICC Telangana in-charge) had failed to take organisational action against a named Congress leader accused of sexual harassment.
Natarajan had received a notice under Section 223 of the BNSS, 2023 (the new criminal procedure code replacing CrPC) and had filed a counter-affidavit in October 2025, characterising the complaint as “politically motivated.” At the November 2025 hearing, the court had not dismissed the complaint but had not taken cognisance — meaning it was still under examination.
The central legal dispute: Did Natarajan have to disclose this pre-cognisance complaint in Form 26? Congress argued No — Form 26 requires disclosure only of cases “in which cognisance has been taken.” A Section 223 BNSS complaint before cognisance does not constitute a “pending criminal case.” Adding fuel, Telangana Police confirmed no FIR existed against Natarajan — casting doubt on whether any formal criminal case existed at all.
Key Distinction to Remember: Form 26 requires disclosure of criminal cases “in which cognisance has been taken” — NOT every complaint filed. A private complaint under Section 223 BNSS (previously Section 200 CrPC) is before the magistrate for examination; cognisance has not been taken at this stage. The dispute is about whether non-disclosure of a pre-cognisance complaint is “material concealment.” Also: No FIR ≠ No case — but an FIR (registered by police) is different from a private complaint (filed directly to magistrate).
📌 Constitutional & Statutory Framework for Disqualification
Disqualification of a Rajya Sabha candidate can occur at two stages: (1) pre-election (nomination rejected during scrutiny) and (2) post-election (sitting member disqualified after election). The key provisions:
Article 84 — Qualifications for Parliament membership: Indian citizenship; prescribed oath; minimum age of 30 years for Rajya Sabha (25 for Lok Sabha); any additional qualifications prescribed by Parliament.
Article 102 — Disqualification grounds for sitting MPs: Office of Profit; declared of unsound mind; undischarged insolvent; not an Indian citizen or having voluntarily acquired foreign citizenship; disqualified under any Parliamentary law. The Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law) also disqualifies MPs who vote against their party’s direction.
Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) — the principal statute. Key disqualification sections:
- Section 8(1): Conviction for specified severe offences (promoting enmity, bribery, Prevention of Corruption Act, POCSO, rape, terrorism, offences relating to national flag/Constitution etc.) → immediate disqualification from date of conviction, regardless of sentence length.
- Section 8(2): Conviction for hoarding, profiteering, or food/drug adulteration with ≥6 months imprisonment → disqualification.
- Section 8(3): Any conviction resulting in imprisonment of 2 years or more → disqualification for the period of imprisonment plus 6 years after release. (Most commonly invoked provision.)
- Section 8A: Corrupt electoral practices (voter bribery, booth capturing) → disqualification for up to 6 years.
- Section 9: Dismissed from government service for corruption/disloyalty → barred for 5 years from dismissal.
- Section 9A: Holding an active contract with the Central/State Government → disqualification (to prevent simultaneous business dealings with government entered).
- Section 10A: Failure to lodge election expense account → disqualification for 3 years by ECI order.
📖 Form 26, Section 33A & the ADR Judgment (2002)
Form 26 is the mandatory affidavit every parliamentary or assembly candidate must submit with nomination papers. It originated from the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) (2002), which held that voters have a fundamental right to know about the criminal antecedents, assets, and educational qualifications of candidates. Parliament subsequently codified this through Section 33A (inserted in the RPA in 2003).
Candidates must disclose in Form 26:
- All pending criminal cases in which cognisance has been taken by a court
- Any conviction or acquittal in the preceding six years
- Details of movable and immovable assets (self, spouse, dependants)
- Liabilities — especially those owed to public financial institutions
- Educational qualifications
The critical phrase — “in which cognisance has been taken” — is the crux of the Natarajan dispute. A private complaint under Section 223 BNSS (previously Section 200 CrPC) is submitted to a Magistrate, who examines the complainant on oath and decides whether to take cognisance. Before cognisance, the complaint is under examination — not a pending case in the legally prescribed sense.
Congress’s position before the Supreme Court (through senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi): since cognisance had not been taken, there was no “pending criminal case” to disclose, making the RO’s rejection legally unsustainable.
The ADR judgment (2002) was a landmark in voter empowerment — giving citizens the right to know a candidate’s criminal history. But the Natarajan case shows how the same disclosure mechanism can be weaponised at the nomination stage, using contested legal interpretations to knock out rivals before a single vote is cast. Should the scrutiny of affidavits at the nomination stage be moved to a judicial body rather than an administrative Returning Officer?
✨ The Returning Officer: Powers and Limits
The Returning Officer (RO) is typically a senior civil servant (District Collector for constituency elections; Secretary of the State Legislative Assembly for Rajya Sabha elections) designated to conduct elections. Under Section 36 of the RPA, the RO may scrutinise nominations and reject them on these grounds:
- Candidate is not qualified or is disqualified
- Nomination not submitted in accordance with prescribed rules
- Signature of candidate or proposer is not genuine
- Affidavit is materially incomplete or contains misrepresentations
However, the RO’s power at scrutiny is summary and limited — not a full judicial trial. Legal experts consistently note the RO should exercise this power narrowly, in favour of inclusion rather than exclusion. The RPA provides no statutory appeal against an RO’s nomination rejection order — the only remedy is a post-election petition or a writ petition to the High Court or Supreme Court.
👤 The Supreme Court Challenge
On 11 June 2026, Natarajan moved the Supreme Court in Meenakshi Natarajan v. Election Commission of India (Diary No. 36330/2026). The Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S. Chandurkar agreed to hear the matter but questioned its maintainability — courts are generally reluctant to interfere with election processes once underway.
Congress’s four-pronged argument before the Supreme Court:
- The Hyderabad private complaint had not reached the stage of cognisance
- Telangana Police confirmed no FIR or formal criminal case existed against Natarajan
- A Section 223 BNSS pre-cognisance notice is not a “pending case” for Form 26 disclosure purposes
- The RO’s rejection was therefore legally unsustainable and an abuse of quasi-judicial power
Regardless of the legal outcome, the political consequence was immediate: with Natarajan out of the contest, BJP candidate Mahesh Kewat was declared elected unopposed, giving the BJP a clean sweep of all three Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sabha seats.
1. Nomination Stage: RO rejects under Section 36 RPA (summary power — Form 26 issues, ineligibility). 2. Post-Conviction: Section 8 RPA (2+ years imprisonment → 6 years extra disqualification). 3. Post-Election / Anti-Defection: Tenth Schedule disqualification for defying party whip — decided by Speaker/Chairman.
Click to flip • Master key facts
For GDPI, Essay Writing & Critical Analysis
5 questions • Instant feedback
Article 80 lays down the composition of Rajya Sabha — maximum 250 members (238 elected + 12 nominated by President). The Fourth Schedule specifies seat allocation. Article 84 covers qualifications (30-year min. age for RS). Article 81 covers Lok Sabha composition. Article 102 covers disqualification grounds.
Section 8(3) RPA: any conviction resulting in imprisonment of 2 years or more → disqualification for the period of imprisonment PLUS 6 years after release. Section 8(1) covers specific severe offences (immediate disqualification regardless of sentence). Section 8(2) covers food adulteration/hoarding. Section 10A covers failure to lodge election expenses (3-year disqualification by ECI).
Form 26 requires disclosure of criminal cases “IN WHICH COGNISANCE HAS BEEN TAKEN” — not every complaint. A pre-cognisance private complaint under Section 223 BNSS is before the Magistrate for examination; cognisance not yet taken. This was the central legal dispute: Natarajan argued there was no cognisance, therefore no disclosure obligation.
Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006) upheld the open ballot system for Rajya Sabha elections — MLAs must show marked ballots to their party agents before depositing. Held to not violate the Constitution’s basic structure and to strengthen democratic transparency. The ADR case (2002) was about criminal disclosure by candidates.
Under STV for Rajya Sabha, the quota = [Total valid votes ÷ (seats + 1)] + 1. MP effective Assembly strength: 229; 3 seats. So: 229 ÷ (3+1) = 57.25 → quota = 58 first-preference votes per seat. 77 would be the majority threshold for a simple 2-seat scenario; 50 and 46 are incorrect.
