New Delhi, June 12, 2026
The Congress on Friday mounted a sharp attack on the BJP and the Election Commission, alleging collusion in the rejection of senior party leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s nomination for the Rajya Sabha elections in Madhya Pradesh.
The party in a statement claimed that the BJP did not possess sufficient numbers in the Madhya Pradesh Assembly to secure a third Rajya Sabha seat and therefore resorted to “underhand tactics” to eliminate its rival candidate from the contest.
The party alleged that Natarajan’s nomination was rejected by the Returning Officer on “flawed and unreasonable grounds” relating to the alleged non-disclosure of a criminal case in her election affidavit.
According to the Congress, no criminal case is currently pending against Natarajan and no court has taken cognisance of any offence against her. The party maintained that the legal notice cited by the Returning Officer pertained only to a private complaint and did not amount to a pending criminal case requiring disclosure under Form 26 of the nomination papers.
The Congress argued that Form 26 requires candidates to disclose only those criminal cases in which charges have been framed or a court has taken cognisance of an offence. Since neither condition was met in Natarajan’s case, the party said her response of “Not Applicable” in the relevant section of the affidavit was legally valid.
Questioning the Returning Officer’s decision, the Congress claimed that the officer incorrectly stated that a court had taken cognisance of the alleged offence. It cited provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), asserting that the magistrate had merely issued a notice to provide an opportunity for hearing and had not initiated criminal proceedings.
The opposition party further accused the ECI of applying “double standards” by treating the nomination of Rajya Sabha candidate Parimal Nathwani differently in Jharkhand.
The Congress alleged that Nathwani’s nomination papers contained several defects, including discrepancies in the name mentioned in the affidavit, incomplete responses in Form 26, and omissions relating to asset and tax disclosures. Despite these alleged shortcomings, the party claimed that the Returning Officer in Jharkhand allowed clarifications and accepted the nomination.
Citing a Supreme Court judgment in Prahladdas Khandelwal vs Narendra Kumar Salave (1973), the Congress contended that Returning Officers are not empowered to permit candidates to rectify substantial defects during scrutiny.
“The BJP and the ECI are partners in crime in this latest instance of seat chori,” the party said.(Agency)
FOLLOW NOW
