New Delhi/bhopal, June 11 -- The Election Commission was yet to decide on the Congress' demand to revoke the rejection of Meenakshi Natarajan's nomination for Rajya Sabha polls from Madhya Pradesh even as the state unit of the party was preparing to move the Supreme Court on Thursday against the order by the Returning Officer (RO). Leader of Opposition in Madhya Pradesh assembly Umang Singhar said, "The Congress will move the Supreme Court against this injustice. If required, we will meet the President of India to raise the matter of constitutional crises created by the BJP." A delegation of top party leaders, including K C Venugopal, Jairam Ramesh, Abhishek Singhvi, Vivek Tankha, Randeep Surjewala, Bhupesh Baghel and Deepa Dasmunshi, along with Natarajan, met the Commission and demanded that the decision should be reversed. After meeting EC officials Singhvi termed the RO's order "poor and absolutely partisan" as party MLAs in Madhya Pradesh on Wednesday staged a hunger strike against the rejection of Natarajan's nomination, calling it a coordinated conspiracy under pressure from the BJP government. "The decision of the Returning Officer is indeed poor and absolutely partisan," Singhvi posted on X, sharing a video laying out his legal objections to the order. Speaking to reporters, Natarajan said, "This is a subversion of democracy....We still have full faith in constitutional institutions. That is why we are fighting this battle." After the Congress delegation left, the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and the two Election Commissioners (EC) sat through an extended internal meeting to decide whether to intervene - but by nightfall no decision had been taken, leaving the June 9 rejection in force and the BJP's three nominees, Tarun Chugh, Rajneesh Agrawal and Mahesh Kewat, set to be declared elected unopposed to the state's three seats. Senior ECI officials present in the deliberations said the Commission worked through the matter end to end - the governing provisions of the election law, the line of Supreme Court rulings on disclosure, and the precedents thrown up by earlier Rajya Sabha and other electoral contests. Natrajan's nomination was rejected on Tuesday after BJP leaders, including Rajya Sabha candidate Mahesh Kewat and party state general secretary Rahul Kothari, filed an objection, alleging Natarajan had concealed details of a pending case in a Hyderabad court in her election affidavit. The RO upheld the objection, ruling she had filed an incomplete form and failed to disclose a court summons issued in connection with a rape case filed against a Congress leader in Telangana in 2022. EC officials said the discussion was anchored in Section 36 of the Representative of People Act, which governs scrutiny. Under Section 36(2), a RO may reject a nomination on limited grounds - non-compliance with Section 33 or 34, or a candidate's disqualification. Section 36(4) then bars rejection "on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character," while the proviso to Section 36(5) allows a candidate, once an objection is raised, to be given time to rebut it "not later than the next day but one following the date fixed for scrutiny." Section 36(6) requires the officer to record written reasons for any rejection. The Congress has argued that Natarajan was only a respondent and not an accused, and that no FIR had followed her response. In Bhopal, Congress leaders began an indefinite fast at Roshanpura Square to protest and staged demonstrations across Madhya Pradesh. Youth Congress workers in Bhopal visited the office of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) on Wednesday. Finding the gate locked, they hung a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) uniform on the gate before leaving. Congress Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate Vivek Tankha who examined the nomination papers before they were filed, said the Returning Officer cannot reject a nomination without giving the candidate a meaningful opportunity to address the deficiency. Madhya Pradesh chief minister Mohan Yadav defended the RO's decision. "If one has a pending criminal case in any court, it must be disclosed in the affidavit so that every voter is aware of all relevant details. I welcome the decision," he said....