The Supreme Court of India has declined to intervene in the rejection of Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan's nomination for the Rajya Sabha elections in Madhya Pradesh, citing constitutional prohibitions on judicial interference in electoral processes.

印度最高法院拒絕干預國會黨領袖 Meenakshi Natarajan 在中央邦 Rajya Sabha 選舉中被取消提名的事件，理由是憲法禁止司法干預選舉程序。

The legal dispute originated from the decision of the Returning Officer, Arvind Sharma, to reject Ms. Natarajan's candidature on June 9. This determination followed a complaint by Mahesh Kewat, alleging that the candidate's Form 26 affidavit omitted a summons from a Hyderabad court regarding a molestation complaint filed by a former party worker. While the petitioner's counsel, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, contended that the matter was at a pre-cognizance stage and thus did not constitute a pending criminal case requiring disclosure, the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) maintained that all pending legal matters must be disclosed regardless of the stage of proceedings.

這場法律糾紛源於選舉主任 Arvind Sharma 於 6 月 9 日決定取消 Natarajan 女士的參選資格。該決定是基於 Mahesh Kewat 的投訴，指控候選人在 Form 26 宣誓書中漏掉了一份海德拉巴法院關於前黨員控告其猥褻的傳票。雖然申請人代表律師 Abhishek Manu Singhvi 主張該事項仍處於初步審查階段，不構成需要披露的懸而未決刑事案件，但印度選舉委員會 (ECI) 與印度人民黨 (BJP) 堅持無論程序處於哪個階段，所有懸而未決的法律事項都必須披露。

During the proceedings, the bench comprising Justices PK Mishra and AS Chandurkar focused on the maintainability of the petition under Article 32. The court observed that Article 329 of the Constitution establishes a bar against the exercise of writ jurisdiction in electoral matters, stipulating that an election petition is the exclusive legal remedy. The court rejected the proposition that 'patent errors' justify an exception to this mandate, asserting that such an interpretation would inconsistently apply the law. Furthermore, the court noted the argument that the right to contest an election is statutory rather than fundamental, thereby rendering the writ petition inappropriate.

在聆訊期間，由法官 PK Mishra 與 AS Chandurkar 組成的法庭重點討論了根據第 32 條提交申請的可接受性。法院指出，憲法第 329 條禁止在選舉事項上行使令狀管轄權，並規定選舉請願是唯一的法律救濟途徑。法院駁回了「明顯錯誤」可作為例外的主張，認為這樣解釋法律將導致適用不一致。此外，法院注意到有論點指出參選權是法定權利而非基本權利，因此提交令狀申請並不適當。

Concurrent with these legal developments, the ECI declared the three BJP candidates—Rajneesh Agrawal, Tarun Chugh, and Mahesh Kewat—elected unopposed on Thursday, as Ms. Natarajan was the sole Congress candidate. This outcome precipitated political friction, characterized by the Congress party's allegations of institutional capture and the detention of 61 Madhya Pradesh MLAs by Delhi Police during a planned demonstration toward Rashtrapati Bhavan. The state government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, sought to intervene to clarify the legal requirements for disclosure in nomination affidavits.

與這些法律進展同時，由於 Natarajan 女士是唯一的國會黨候選人，ECI 於週四宣布三名 BJP 候選人——Rajneesh Agrawal、Tarun Chugh 與 Mahesh Kewat——在無對手的情況下當選。這一結果引發了政治摩擦，國會黨指責機構被控制，而 61 名中央邦立法會議員在計劃向總統府示威期間被德里警方拘留。由律政司長 Tushar Mehta 代表的邦政府尋求干預，以澄清提名宣誓書中披露要求的法律規定。

The Supreme Court has dismissed the petition without commenting on the merits of the case, leaving the petitioner the option to seek redress through an election petition in the High Court.

最高法院在未對案件實質內容發表評論的情況下駁回了申請，申請人可以選擇通過向高等法院提出選舉請願來尋求救濟。