Overview
- The Supreme Court dismissed Natarajan’s writ under Article 32 on Friday, June 12, saying election disputes must generally be raised through an election petition under Article 329.
- A returning officer had set aside Natarajan’s nomination for not disclosing a Hyderabad private complaint in her election affidavit, a move that helped three BJP candidates from Madhya Pradesh be declared elected unopposed.
- On the same day a Hyderabad magistrate returned the private complainant’s petition for lack of jurisdiction and asked it to be refiled in the appropriate court for cases involving public representatives.
- Lawyers remain split over disclosure rules: Natarajan’s counsel says a pre‑cognisance private complaint that only produced summonses is not a ‘pending criminal case,’ while the Election Commission and opposing lawyers say all pending complaints must be listed in affidavits.
- The legal tug‑of‑war has triggered protests by Madhya Pradesh Congress leaders in Delhi and will now play out in an election petition, which could decide both the legal standard for disclosure and the Rajya Sabha seat outcome.