Refusing to quash batting maestro Sachin Tendulkar's nomination to the Rajya Sabha, the Supreme Court asked petitioner Ram Gopal Singh Sisodia, a former Delhi MLA to rather approach the high court with his plea.

The petitioner had challenged the nomination on the ground that Sachin was not entitled to nomination as Article 80 prescribes that only persons of eminence in the fields of art, literature and science are to be nominated to the Rajya Sabha.

A vacation bench of justices Deepak Verma and S J Mukhopadhya asked counsel R K Kapoor as to why he directly approached the apex court instead of invoking the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

"Why did you come to us directly under Article 32. You could have approached the high court? " the bench told the counsel who submitted that he had a Constitutional right to approach either courts.

The court then wondered if a writ of quo warranto would lie when a person is nominated to a particular post.

A writ of quo warranto is a plea in which an individual's right to hold an office or governmental privilege is challenged by another person.

Thereafter, the bench gave the option to the counsel to withdraw the petition with liberty to move the high court which he agreed and accordingly withdrew it.

Sisodia in his petition said Sachin does not possess any of the qualifications as prescribed under Article 80 of the Constitution of India for being nominated to the Rajya Sabha.

"But despite that he has been nominated as a member of Rajya Shaba. His nomination is not in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and liable to be struck down."