What's the case against Meenakshi Natarajan and who is the complainant?

Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan's Rajya Sabha nomination was rejected after the BJP alleged she failed to disclose a Telangana court matter linked to a private complaint by a former Congress worker. While Congress said no criminal case exists against her, the complainant accused party leaders, including Natarajan, of ignoring her molestation allegations.

In Short

• Meenakshi Natarajan's nomination rejected after BJP charge she didn't disclose case details
• BJP claimed she hid pending case, Congress said it's not criminal case
• Complainant named Natarajan in private complaint for 'failing' to act over molestation claims

The rejection of Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan's Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh has triggered a major political and legal controversy, with the BJP alleging that she failed to disclose a pending court case in Telangana, while the Congress insists that no criminal case exists against her and that the nomination was wrongly rejected.

At the centre of the row is a private complaint, not a case, filed by a former Congress worker from Telangana. The person alleged that she was harassed and molested by a party colleague. She also alleged that senior party leaders, including Meenakshi Natarajan, failed to act despite repeated representations.

The controversy stems from a private complaint pending before a Hyderabad court in which Natarajan has been named by a former Congress worker from Telangana. The BJP contends that the Congress leader failed to disclose the matter in her election affidavit and therefore filed an incomplete nomination form, warranting its rejection. The Congress, however, maintains that no criminal case is pending against Natarajan and that she was merely issued a court notice in a private complaint, which did not require disclosure under election rules.

WHAT IS THE COMPLAINT ABOUT?

According to the complainant, the dispute dates back to 2022 when the woman accused a Congress colleague of harassment and molestation. She claimed she repeatedly brought the allegations to the notice of senior party leaders and sought disciplinary action against the accused, but no effective steps were taken.

Speaking to India Today TV, the woman alleged that the accused wielded considerable influence within the party because members of his family were IAS officers. She claimed attempts were made to shut down the matter and that she faced resistance whenever she tried to pursue action.

The complainant said she repeatedly demanded the suspension of the accused and approached state Congress leaders over the years. The woman claimed she was told at various points to stay away from party activities after raising the issue. She alleged that despite assurances from party leaders, including those in Telangana and the Congress high command, no meaningful disciplinary action was ultimately taken.

She further claimed that when Meenakshi Natarajan became the Congress in-charge for Telangana, she personally met her and sought action against the accused. She also said that Natarajan assured her that the matter would be looked into and indicated that the accused had been suspended. However, she maintained that no formal suspension order was ever shown to her and that the issue remained unresolved.

"I only want justice," the complainant said, arguing that political parties have disciplinary mechanisms and that her repeated requests for action were ignored.

WHY WAS MEENAKSHI NATARAJAN NAMED IN COMPLAINT?

In September 2025, the woman approached a Hyderabad magistrate court through a private complaint. Besides naming the man accused of molestation, she also named several Congress leaders, including Meenakshi Natarajan, alleging that they failed to act on her complaints despite being informed of the allegations.

The complainant's contention is not that Natarajan was involved in the alleged molestation itself, but that as a senior party functionary and Telangana in-charge, she failed to ensure action against the accused despite being informed about the matter.

Natarajan subsequently filed a response before the court. According to the complainant, Natarajan's stand was that the matter was a personal case. The complainant objected to that characterisation, arguing that allegations of molestation and harassment could not be treated as merely a personal case.

A Hyderabad court issued a notice to Natarajan in 2025 seeking her response to the complaint. Congress leaders have argued that the notice was issued under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) as part of preliminary proceedings and was intended to secure her participation in the matter. They maintain that no criminal charges have been framed against her and that no further substantive action has been taken by the trial court so far.

The case remains at a preliminary stage and hearings are continuing.

ABOUT THE NOMINATION ROW

The controversy over the rejection of Meenakshi Natarajan's Rajya Sabha nomination erupted during scrutiny of nominations for the June 18 Rajya Sabha polls from Madhya Pradesh.

BJP candidate Mahesh Kewat objected to Meenakshi Natarajan's nomination, alleging that she had failed to disclose the Telangana court matter in her affidavit. After examining the objection, the Returning Officer rejected her nomination, holding that material facts relating to the case had not been disclosed. Officials said she was given an opportunity to furnish details but did not do so.

The rejection dramatically altered the electoral arithmetic in Madhya Pradesh, bringing the BJP closer to winning all three Rajya Sabha seats from the state.

The Congress, however, has maintained that there is no criminal case against Natarajan, who has called the cancellation as unlawful and politically motivated. The party argues that she had only received a court notice in a private complaint and that such a notice did not amount to a criminal case requiring disclosure in the nomination papers.

The party has approached the Election Commission seeking reversal of the Returning Officer's decision and termed the rejection a violation of established legal principles.

Election law experts note that candidates are required to disclose pending criminal matters on Form 26. In a Form 26 affidavit, a candidate should ensure transparency by publicly declaring the candidate's criminal history, assets, liabilities, educational qualifications and financial obligations.

- Ends