The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to urgently hear a petition filed by Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the rejection of her nomination for the Rajya Sabha elections from Madhya Pradesh.

A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice A.S. Chandurkar agreed to list the matter for hearing on Friday after Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi sought urgent intervention on Natarajan's behalf.

Seeking an immediate hearing, Singhvi informed the Court that the last date for withdrawal of nominations was Thursday and urged the Bench to pass orders restraining the declaration of election results.

According to Singhvi, Natarajan's nomination was rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that she had failed to disclose a criminal case pending against her. He argued that no cognizance had been taken in the matter and that she had merely been served with a pre-cognizance notice under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

He submitted that Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act requires disclosure only of criminal cases in which cognizance has been taken by a court.

During the hearing, Justice Mishra questioned the maintainability of the petition, observing that courts generally do not interfere in election matters at an interim stage. Singhvi, however, contended that judicial intervention was permissible in cases involving glaring legal errors.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the rival candidate, opposed the petition's maintainability. Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, representing the Election Commission of India, also raised objections on the same ground.

After hearing the parties, the Bench agreed to take up the matter on Friday.

Natarajan's nomination was reportedly rejected by Returning Officer Arvind Sharma following allegations that she had omitted details of a criminal proceeding pending in Telangana from her nomination papers.

The controversy relates to a private complaint (No. 4472/2025) filed by former Congress worker A. Srilatha before the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate in Hyderabad. Natarajan has been arrayed as Respondent No. 4 in the complaint.

The complainant is stated to have made allegations of molestation against another accused person and accused Natarajan and certain other Congress functionaries of failing to act on repeated complaints. Natarajan currently serves as the All India Congress Committee's in-charge for Telangana.

As part of the proceedings, Natarajan reportedly received a notice under Section 223 BNSS. The provision requires the Magistrate to hear the proposed accused before deciding whether cognizance should be taken on a private complaint. She was therefore summoned to explain why cognizance should not be taken against her.

The Congress party has also approached the Election Commission challenging the rejection of her nomination. In a statement posted on X, the party argued that Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act mandates disclosure only in cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment of two years or more and where charges have been framed.

The party maintained that Natarajan had only received a pre-cognizance notice and that no criminal case, in the legal sense, existed against her at the time of filing her nomination papers.

According to the Congress, the absence of cognizance meant there was no disclosable criminal proceeding, making the rejection of her nomination legally unsustainable.

Case: Meenakshi Natarajan v. Election Commission of India | Diary No. 36330/2026.