Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan has defended her Rajya Sabha nomination papers, arguing that the controversy surrounding their rejection stems from differing interpretations of disclosure requirements under Form 26.
Speaking in Delhi ahead of the Supreme Court hearing on the matter, Natarajan said she would refrain from discussing the case in detail because it is currently under judicial consideration. However, she maintained that the facts available in the public domain support her position.
“Since the matter is sub judice, and currently being heard by the Supreme Court, I will not discuss it in great detail or delve into all the legal aspects today. However, one specific matter is already in the public domain; since it is available on the Election Commission’s website,” she said.
Explaining her stand, Natarajan stated that the dispute revolves around the contents of Form 26, a document filed by election candidates as part of the nomination process.
“The core of the entire issue revolves around a specific document—Form 26. It has been alleged that I failed to record certain information in Form 26 and concealed facts,” she said.
The Congress leader asserted that the main objection relates to whether she should have disclosed a legal notice she had received, even though no court proceedings had advanced beyond that stage.
“The most critical point which sparked this entire controversy concerns the disclosure of any pending criminal cases or convictions for punishable offenses. Naturally, regarding these points, I stated that they were not applicable to me because I had only received a legal notice. I provided full legal details regarding that notice in the memorandum submitted to the ECI, and I will present the same facts in the Supreme Court today.”
Natarajan argued that a legal notice cannot be equated with a criminal case in which a court has formally taken cognisance.
“It is merely a legal notice; the court has not even taken cognizance of the matter. Therefore, there must be clarity regarding where exactly this was supposed to be recorded.”
Questioning the basis of the objection raised against her nomination, she further said that the prescribed form does not contain any provision requiring disclosure of private complaints that have not progressed into formal legal proceedings.
“Form 26 contains no column requiring the disclosure of information about random private complaints. Had there been such a column, I would certainly have provided that information,” Natarajan said.
