Published Jun 13, 2026 | 11:21 AM ⚊ Updated Jun 13, 2026 | 11:23 AM
Meenakshi Natarajan. Credit: facebook.com/MNatarajan.INC
Synopsis: An Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Hyderabad’s order that the case against Meenakshi Natarajan did not fall under their jurisdiction has added another dimension to the brewing controversy.
A Hyderabad court’s refusal to hear the complaint that led to the rejection of Telangana Congress affairs in-charge Meenakshi Natarajan’s Rajya Sabha bid has added a fresh legal twist to the simmering political battle.
Natarajan’s nomination for the RS seat from Madhya Pradesh was rejected by Returning Officer Arvind Sharma on the grounds that she had suppressed a criminal case filed against her in Form 26 of her application.
But on Friday, June 12, the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Nampally refused to entertain Akula Srilatha’s private complaint against Natarajan and many other Congress leaders, stating that it lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case.
Jandhyala Ravi Shankar, senior advocate, who appeared on behalf of the Congress leaders, had argued before the court that the summons had been issued without facts being examined and that the case did not fall under the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court. The court went on to agree with him.
Srilatha’s complaint charges the Congress leadership with failure to act against former Congress leader Kumbham Shiv Kumar Reddy of Narayanpet.
A former municipal corporator from the Backward Class, Srilatha had filed her original police complaint in 2022 and accused Reddy of sexual harassment, humiliation and defamation on caste grounds. She had approached the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court in Hyderabad in May 2025, citing the lack of any action.
Natarajan filed a detailed reply to the preliminary court summons on October 24, 2025, claiming that she was not guilty of any wrongdoing and had no role to play in the matter.
A senior Telangana Congress legal representative was quick to point out that the nomination controversy could have been avoided if the “jurisdictional issue had been settled earlier.”
On Friday, the Supreme Court had dismissed Natarajan’s petition against the rejection of her nomination papers.
Justices PK Mishra and AS Chandurkar held that the Court will not intervene, citing Article 329(b) of the Constitution.
Article 329(b) states that “no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature”.
Noted lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi had argued in a video released on public platforms before appearing in the Supreme Court on Natarajan’s behalf that the rejection of the nomination was “patently and blatantly illegal because no criminal case, in the eyes of the law, exists against Ms. Natarajan.”
He stated that “this is because, in a private complaint, which anyone can file against anyone, no criminal case comes into existence unless and until the magistrate or the concerned judge takes cognizance.
“At the highest, in the present case of Ms. Natarajan, there is a notice by a court to her on a private complaint well before that court has taken cognizance, and indeed, the issue of cognizance is yet to be decided after hearing her by that court. So where is the question of a criminal case which she had to disclose?
“This is well established by Indian jurisprudence, including a High Court judgment directly on point. It is not possible that the Returning Officer took an independent, objective, fair, and impartial stance; otherwise, there is no way in law her nomination could have been rejected…” he said in the video.
Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge was among those who expressed deep reservations post the Supreme Court’s verdict.
“The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s argument is that we should first go to the Election Commission, then to the High Court, and only thereafter approach the Supreme Court.
“However, this is a special case. The more time that is given, the longer this matter will be dragged out.
“Nevertheless, since the Court has said so, we will approach the High Court accordingly. We believe that this rejection is illegal, immoral, and anti-democratic.
“What the BJP government has done is wrong. Such major actions do not happen without the approval or direction of PM Modi.
“We believe that these steps are being taken deliberately as part of a larger conspiracy to weaken the Congress Party and undermine Democracy. In our view, these actions are aimed at harassing and suppressing the Opposition,” he posted in a statement.
Also Read: Desperate Congress goes all out to trace leak that sank Meenakshi Natarajan
