Fixing India’s Flawed Nomination Process

Why in the News?

There have been increasing cases of arbitrary rejection of candidates’ nominations in recent elections. The wide discretion vested in the Returning Officer (RO) under Sections 33–36 of the RPA, 1951 and the lack of timely judicial review (Article 329(b)) make nomination scrutiny a critical governance and electoral-reform issue.

What is the eligibility criteria for contesting elections?

1. The eligibility criteria for contesting elections in India depend on the level of election — Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, State Legislature, etc.
2. The criteria are mainly defined under the Constitution of India and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA, 1951).
3. Common Eligibility Criteria (for all elections)
   1. Citizenship: Must be an Indian citizen.
   2. Age:
      1. Lok Sabha / Legislative Assembly: Minimum 25 years.
      2. Rajya Sabha / Legislative Council: Minimum 30 years.
   3. Name in Electoral Roll: The person’s name must be on the electoral roll of any constituency.
   4. Oath: Must make and subscribe an oath or affirmation before the Returning Officer.
   5. Security Deposit: Required as per RPA, 1951 (₹25,000 for LS; ₹10,000 for State Assembly for general candidates; half for SC/ST).
4. Additional Qualifications (as per Article 84 & 173)
   1. Must possess any qualifications prescribed by Parliament through law (i.e., RPA, 1951).
   2. Must not hold any office of profit under the Government (except certain exempted ones).
5. Disqualifications
   1. A person is disqualified if:
      1. Convicted for certain offences (corruption, crimes ≥2 years imprisonment, etc.).
      2. Found guilty of corrupt practices or electoral offences.

• Undischarged insolvent (bankrupt).

1. Not of sound mind, declared by a competent court.
2. Holds a profit-making government position.

India’s Electoral Nomination Process

1. The nomination process is the first and most crucial step in an election. It determines who is allowed to contest before a single vote is cast. It is governed mainly by:
   1. Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951 – Sections 33 to 36
   2. Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961
2. Filing of Nomination (Section 33, RPA 1951)
   1. A candidate must file a nomination paper before the Returning Officer (RO) of the constituency.
   2. It must be filed between the date of notification and the last date fixed for nominations (usually 7 days after notification).
   3. The form must include:
      1. Candidate’s personal details.
      2. A proposer (1 for recognised parties; 10 for independents).

• A security deposit (₹25,000 for Lok Sabha, ₹10,000 for State Assembly; half for SC/ST).

1. The nomination must be delivered in person by the candidate or proposer.

3. Oath or Affirmation (Section 33A & 34)
   1. The candidate must take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of India before an authorised officer after filing nomination but before scrutiny.
   2. Failure to take this oath results in rejection of nomination.
4. Scrutiny of Nominations (Section 36)
   1. The Returning Officer (RO) scrutinises all nomination papers on the day fixed by the Election Commission (usually next day).
   2. RO may reject nominations for:
      1. Non-fulfilment of qualification criteria.
      2. Missing or defective affidavits (Form 26).

• Failure to submit “no dues” certificates, missing signatures, or incomplete details.

1. Non-payment of security deposit.

1. The RO’s decision is final at this stage — courts cannot interfere due to Article 329(b) (bar on judicial intervention during elections).

5. Withdrawal of Candidature (Section 37)
   1. After scrutiny, candidates have two days to withdraw their candidature.
   2. Withdrawals must be made in writing to the RO.
6. Publication of Final List (Section 38)
   1. The RO prepares and publishes the final list of validly nominated candidates.
   2. Symbols are then allotted by the Election Commission of India (ECI).
7. Election and Results
   1. Only the candidates whose nominations are accepted appear on the ballot or EVM.
   2. After polling, counting, and declaration of results, the Election Commission notifies the elected members.

Procedural traps that routinely cause rejections

1. Oath Trap: Candidates must take an oath before a specified authority after filing nomination but before scrutiny. Too early, too late, or before the wrong authority—nomination gets rejected.
2. Notarisation Trap: Form 26 affidavit must be notarised by the correct authority. Missing this step leads to rejection.
3. Certificate Trap: Candidates must submit no-dues certificates (from municipal bodies, electricity boards, etc.) and clearance from the Election Commission (for government servants). Each office can delay or block the process.

Related Case of SC

1. Resurgence India vs Election Commission (2013): The Supreme Court ruled that false information leads to prosecution but not disqualification; however, incomplete forms can cause rejection — so mistakes are punished more harshly than lies.
   Court orders for transparency such as mandatory affidavits on assets, liabilities, and criminal cases have unintentionally increased chances of rejection on technical grounds.

Comparisons and reform proposals

1. International practice: UK, Canada, Germany and Australia allow correction windows, notices and facilitation by officials.
2. Proposed Indian fixes: Treat deficiencies as three categories:
   1. Technical/paperwork;
   2. Authenticity-verification;
   3. Constitutional/statutory bars.

Implications

1. Democratic exclusion: Arbitrary rejections violate the candidate’s right to contest and voters’ right to choose, undermining electoral legitimacy.
2. Political weaponisation: Procedural opacity enables incumbents or local officials to filter opponents without visible political accountability.
3. Judicial bottleneck and irreversibility: Article 329(b) precludes mid-election judicial relief, making post-poll election petitions an inadequate remedy.
4. Erosion of electoral competitiveness: Frequent technical disqualifications reduce contestation and can produce uncontested races or skewed outcomes.
5. Need for capacity and digital reform: Modern, integrated systems can reduce human discretion, speed verification, and increase transparency.

Challenges and Way Forward

Conclusion

Nomination scrutiny is a gatekeeping moment for democracy. The law should prioritise inclusion and facilitation, not paperwork filtration. Clear rules, a statutory cure period, reasoned orders, digital verification and public transparency will protect citizens’ presumptive right to contest and voters’ right to meaningful choice.