Hyderabad:Madhya Pradesh Minister Kailash Vijayvargiya’s feedback on the rejection of All India Congress Committee (AICC) Telangana in-charge Meenakshi Natarajan’s Rajya Sabha nomination from MP have raised eyebrows within the political circles.
He claimed that a person from Telangana Congress had despatched a parchi (slip) to the Madhya Pradesh Bharatiya Janata Occasion (BJP) management, containing particulars of a case lodged towards her on the Fourth Further Chief Justice of the Peace’s Courtroom within the Nampally Courts Complicated.
“How did we come to know until somebody from the Telangana Congress despatched the slip? That is how Congress works. They’re in energy there,” he quipped.
He mentioned there are just a few Congress leaders allegedly miffed with Natarajan, they usually had been those who knowledgeable the Madhya Pradesh BJP concerning the ‘pending’ case.
Natarajan’s Rajya Sabha nomination was rejected after BJP’s candidate Mahesh Kewat lodged a grievance with the Returning Officer, paving the best way for Kewat’s unopposed election.
Speculations after Vijayvargiya’s assertion
Following Vijayvargiya’s remarks, the BRS’s social media deal with and a few people speculated that Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy might have been behind the alleged “soiled work,” claiming his variations with Meenakshi Natarajan.
They highlighted two episodes from 2025: The Kancha Gachibowli controversy, the place Natarajan mediated between the federal government, Hyderabad College college students and environmental activists over the felling of timber. Her intervention was seen as a route from Chief of Opposition within the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi.
The opposite was the Musi Riverfront Growth Venture. Natarajan had publicly slammed the Hyderabad Police for stopping activist Medha Patkar from assembly affected households in Chaderghat going through eviction. Natarajan had opined {that a} progressive political social gathering wouldn’t require residents to take permission.
Nonetheless, Revanth Reddy and Telangana Pradesh Congress Committee (TPCC) President B Mahesh Kumar Goud accused the BJP of resorting to ‘Seat Chori‘ and damaging the democratic course of by stopping Natarajan from being elected to the Rajya Sabha.
The case towards Meenakshi Natarajan
The case towards Meenakshi Natarajan stems from September 17, 2025, when a girl named A Srilatha filed a non-public petition on the Fourth Further Chief Judicial Justice of the Peace of Hyderabad’s Nampally Courtroom towards Kumbham Shivakumar Reddy, former District Congress Committee (DCC) President of Narayanpet, and others, together with Natarajan.
The allegations included legal intimidation, legal defamation, legal conspiracy and insulting the modesty of a girl.
The courtroom had despatched a discover to Meenakshi Natarajan beneath Part 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha (BNSS), to which she had filed a counter.
Srilatha’s transfer got here years after she had filed the primary grievance towards Shivakumar Reddy in 2022, when she accused him of sexual harassment, molestation, intimidation and threats. The case failed to face on account of lack of proof and was disposed of.
Natarajan was not an accused in Srilatha’s 2022 grievance. However in her 2025 personal grievance, the lady claimed that her plea earlier than the chief to take motion towards Reddy ended with none motion.
In line with NDTV, Congress has approached the Election Fee of India (ECI), demanding that the Returning Officer’s determination rejecting Natarajan’s nomination be reversed.
“The EC’s personal legislation beneath Part 33A requires disclosure solely in circumstances the place prices have been framed by a courtroom and the place the offence carries a punishment of two years or extra,” Congress Rajya Sabha MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi was quoted by NDTV.
He maintained that merely submitting a non-public grievance or the existence of a case at a preliminary stage doesn’t robotically require disclosure.
Singhvi reportedly argued with the ECI that Article 324 permits the EC to take corrective motion when an election official’s determination undermines the equity of the electoral course of.
What authorized consultants say
Senior advocate D Suresh Kumar mentioned the matter continues to be on the preliminary enquiry stage, throughout which statements shall be recorded and the courtroom will look at whether or not there’s a prima facie case and adequate grounds to proceed.
Provided that the courtroom accepts the protest petition will the witnesses be cross-examined. The personal grievance shall be formally accepted provided that the courtroom orders a legal grievance.
“Mere lodging of a non-public grievance with no first data report (FIR) wouldn’t represent a legal case towards the respondent, on this case, Meenakshi Natarajan,” Kumar mentioned.
