New Delhi

The Supreme Court on Friday observed that once a candidate's nomination is rejected by the returning officer, the appropriate remedy ordinarily lies before the Election Commission, as it heard Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan's challenge to the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination papers from Madhya Pradesh.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S. Chandurkar questioned whether the apex court had ever interfered at such a stage of the electoral process.

"However erroneous the decision may be, once a nomination is rejected, the remedy ordinarily lies elsewhere. Is there any judgment of this Court where we have interfered at that stage?" the bench asked.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Natarajan, argued that the rejection was legally unsustainable. He submitted that candidates are required to disclose only those criminal cases that attract a minimum punishment of two years, whereas in the present case, only summons had been issued.

Singhvi contended that Natarajan's nomination papers for the Rajya Sabha election in Madhya Pradesh had been wrongly rejected by the returning officer on the ground of alleged non-disclosure of a criminal case under the Representation of the People Act.

According to the order passed by Rajya Sabha Election Returning Officer Arvind Sharma, scrutiny of the nomination documents revealed that Natarajan had filed an incomplete affidavit by omitting details of a court complaint in Form 26.

A Madhya Pradesh Assembly official had earlier stated that BJP candidate Mahesh Kewat objected to Natarajan's nomination, alleging that she failed to disclose a case registered against her in Telangana.

READ MORE: Srinagar: leaders, civil society members protest against PoJK killings

The Supreme Court's remarks indicate its reluctance to intervene in the midst of the electoral process and underscore the established principle that election-related disputes generally follow the statutory remedies provided under election law.