Electoral Nomination Process and Democratic Safeguards

 Why in News?

A recent case from Dadra and Nagar Haveli municipal council elections (2025) highlighted arbitrary rejection of a candidate’s nomination without a hearing or verification, exposing flaws in India’s nomination scrutiny system under the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951.

Relevance

GS-2 (Polity & Governance):

• Issues in electoral process under Representation of the People Act, 1951.
• Arbitrary powers of Returning Officers — violation of Article 14 and 326.
• Highlights procedural opacity and need for digital reforms (ENCORE Portal).
• Supports recommendations of Law Commission and ECI for transparent scrutiny.
• Comparative perspective: Canada, UK models of error correction and reasoned scrutiny.

The Nomination Process

• Legal Basis:
  Governed by Sections 33–36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961.
  • Section 33: Filing of nomination papers.
  • Section 34: Security deposit.
  • Section 35: Notice of nominations.
  • Section 36: Scrutiny of nominations — Returning Officer (RO) empowered to accept or reject.
• Key Clause — Section 36(2):
  Authorises RO to reject a nomination for “defects of a substantial character.”
  However, the Act does not define what constitutes “substantial.”
• Judicial Bar:
  Under Article 329(b), courts cannot intervene during elections, so rejections can only be challenged after results, rendering remedies ineffective.

Core Issue

• Excessive discretionary power of Returning Officers (ROs).
• No uniform guidelines on what constitutes a “substantial defect.”
• Opaque, unreviewable process — enables political exclusion before voting even begins.

Recent Examples of Nomination Rejection

Year	Case	Reason for Rejection	Impact
2025	Dadra & Nagar Haveli	No hearing given to candidate	Violation of natural justice
2024	Surat LS election	Opposition candidates’ proposers denied signatures	Seat won unopposed
2019	Varanasi	Tej Bahadur Yadav (ex-BSF) lacked EC certificate	Prevented independent challenge to PM
2023	Birbhum	Debasish Dhar delayed no-dues certificate	Eliminated from ballot
2025	Bihar (RJD)	Blank fields in form	Technical rejection

Legal & Constitutional Angle

• Constitutional Safeguard:
  • Article 326: Right to vote.
  • Article 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(c): Freedom of expression and association (linked to political participation).
  • Article 14: Equality before law.
    Arbitrary nomination rejection undermines both the candidate’s right to contest and voters’ right to choose.
• Key Case Laws:
  • Resurgence India v. Election Commission (2013):
    False declarations invite prosecution but do not invalidate nomination; incomplete forms do.
    ⇒ Honest errors punished more than deliberate lies.
  • K. Venkatachalam v. A. Swamickan (1999):
    Courts can step in post-election if process violates constitutional principles.
  • PUCL v. Union of India (2003):
    Established voters’ right to know candidates’ background — basis of affidavit filing.

Structural Weaknesses (“Procedural Traps”)

1. Oath Trap:
   Oath must be taken before a specified officer after nomination but before scrutiny; early/late timing = invalid.
2. Notarisation Trap:
   Affidavit (Form 26) not notarised by specified authority = automatic rejection.
3. Certificate Trap:
   “No-dues” or clearance certificates missing/delayed = rejection, often due to bureaucratic delay.
4. Checklist Illusion:
   ROs provide checklists but are not legally binding. Even defect-free forms can later be rejected.

Global Best Practices

Country	Safeguard Measure
UK	RO assists candidates to correct errors before deadlines.
Canada	48-hour correction window for technical defects.
Germany	Written notice + appeal layers for errors.
Australia	Early submission encouraged to enable corrections.

⇒ India treats RO as gatekeeper, while others treat them as facilitators.

Reforms Suggested

1. Digital-by-Default Nomination System:
   1. Online filing, validation via electoral roll, auto-verification of voter ID, age, constituency.
   2. Real-time public dashboard showing nomination status, timestamps, and reasons for acceptance/rejection.
2. Categorisation of Defects:
   1. (1) Technical/paperwork: should not lead to rejection.
   2. (2) Authenticity disputes: require verification.
   3. (3) Constitutional/Statutory disqualifications: valid grounds for rejection.
3. Guaranteed 48-hour Correction Window:
   Similar to Canada’s model, for candidates to fix errors.
4. Mandatory Reasoned Orders:
   Each rejection must specify: violated clause, evidence, and why defect is “substantial.”

Broader Democratic Implications

• Democratic Legitimacy:
  Without fair nomination scrutiny, the right to vote is hollow.
• Political Competition:
  Arbitrary rejections can skew contests — e.g., unopposed seats like Surat (2024).
• Citizen Trust:
  Opacity erodes confidence in ECI’s neutrality.

Data & Facts

• India had 8,000+ candidates rejected in 2019 Lok Sabha elections (ECI data; ~12% of total nominations).
• Average 4 candidates per constituency rejected for technical grounds.
• Lok Sabha 2024: Over 200 nominations rejected in first scrutiny day in Gujarat and Bihar.
• ECI Digital Reforms: ENCORE Portal currently digitises election management but not nomination scrutiny.

---