New Delhi, June 13 -- The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan's petition challenging the rejection of her nomination for the Rajya Sabha elections in Madhya Pradesh on Tuesday, observing that Article 329 of the Constitution bars the interference of courts in electoral matters, and an election petition is the only remedy in such cases. A bench of justices PK Mishra and AS Chandurkar refused to make an exception for Natarajan. It added that its order rejecting the petition will not affect arguments Natarajan or anyone on her behalf makes when they file an election petition in the high court. "If this court accepts such an argument to say in one set of cases, it will find out glaring cases under its writ jurisdiction of Article 32 or the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and in another set of cases when rejection is not improper, relegating them to filing an election petition, this court would be reading some principle that is not provided for in Article 329," the bench said. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for Natarajan, described the returning officer's June 9 order, citing the omission of a Hyderabad court's summons for the nomination rejection, as bizarre. He said that it was a "glaring" case as Section 33A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 requires disclosure of requires disclosure of cases in which a candidate is convicted, or charges are framed. Singhvi argued that the Hyderabad court is yet to take cognisance of the complaint in the case and only sought Natarajan's response at the pre-cognisance stage. The court further pointed out that in a catena of decisions by the top court, in election related cases, the court has refused to invoke its writ jurisdiction in view of Article 329 which states, The court said, "We are afraid that any such interpretation that in some cases, the court may interfere where a candidate's nomination paper is wrongly rejected while leaving some others to file an election petition cannot be accepted. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed." Singhvi said, "This court does have power to interfere where there is a patent error. This court is the sentinel on the qui vive which seeks to guard fundamental rights and this is a candidate who is only seeking to stand for elections."...