Answer

Introduction

India’s robust electoral process often uses procedural technicalities not for verification, but as potent tools for political exclusion. The stringent, often complex, nomination scrutiny stage under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), provides excessive discretion to Returning Officers, effectively limiting democratic choice even before polling begins.

Body

How Procedural Technicalities Become Tools for Exclusion

• Vague Defect Definition: The term “defect of substantial character” (RPA, Sec 36) is undefined, giving Returning officers (ROs) subjective power to reject nominations easily.
• Certificate Traps: Candidates must produce several clearance/no-dues certificates from various government departments within a tight deadline, which often fail due to bureaucratic delay.
  Eg: In Varanasi (2019), an  Ex-BSF candidate’s form was rejected for failing to produce a specific EC certificate within a one-day window.
• Incomplete Affidavit Errors: Leaving any column, even non-essential ones, blank in the mandatory Form 26 affidavit (on assets/criminal records) is treated as ground for rejection.
• Oath/Notarisation Rigidity: Failing to take the required oath after filing but before scrutiny, or missing a specific notarisation seal, leads to automatic invalidation.
• Proposer Vulnerability: The requirement for a minimum number of proposers (1 for recognised party, 10 for others) creates a target for political intimidation or pressure.

Associated Systemic Challenges

• Judicial Review Bar: Article 329(b) of the Constitution prevents courts from intervening during the election process, making an immediate challenge to a rejection impossible.
  Eg: The Delhi High Court (2020) dismissed petitions by rejected Independent candidates, directing them to file only an election petition post-result.
• High Compliance Burden: The sheer volume and legal complexity of the required forms (like the 8-10 page affidavit) disproportionately impacts poor or independent candidates.
• Filtration-over-Facilitation Approach: ROs often adopt a “filtration” mindset, focused on finding errors to reject forms, rather than a “facilitation” role to promote participation.
• Legal delays: Post-rejection remedies often require long court processes, causing uncertainty.

Suggested reforms

• Pre-check facility: Introduce mandatory pre-nomination scrutiny desks to correct errors before filing.
• Provisional acceptance: Allow provisional acceptance with conditional verification to prevent immediate exclusion.
• Standardised affidavit: Simplify, standardise affidavit formats with clear ‘nil/NA’ options to avoid blanks.
• Digital validation: Use online pre-validation of signatures and documents to minimise human error.
• Transparent objections: Limit frivolous objections by requiring deposit and rapid preliminary screening.

Conclusion

The nomination process must be reformed to align with the constitutional goal of free and fair elections. Moving towards a facilitative, digital, and less discretionary system is crucial to prevent technicalities from undermining democratic competition and to ensure that only genuine statutory grounds lead to exclusion.

DOWNLOAD PDF