Introduction

The Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, empowers the Election Commission of India (ECI) and returning officers to scrutinize nominations to ensure candidates meet legal qualifications. However, excessive procedural formalism has made nomination scrutiny a potential chokepoint where even minor clerical errors can disqualify legitimate contenders. This procedural rigidity, instead of filtering unqualified candidates, has evolved into a tool of exclusion, undermining electoral fairness and the voter’s right to choice, a core tenet of representative democracy.

Why is the Nomination Process in News?

A young woman from Darda Nagar Haveli recently had her nomination for a municipal election rejected without hearing or clarification, sparking outrage. The issue resonates nationally because it reveals how India’s nomination process. Once a procedural safeguard now functions as a gatekeeping mechanism, often silencing genuine candidates on technical grounds. This marks a sharp contrast with the intended democratic spirit of the RPA and represents a major procedural failure in the electoral framework.

How Does India’s Nomination Process Work?

1. Legal Framework: Governed by Section 33 to 36 of the RPA, 1951.
2. Returning Officer’s Power: The RO decides on validity; their decision is final at the nomination stage.
3. Grounds for Rejection: Nomination can be rejected for “defective or incomplete declaration,” even if trivial.
4. Judicial Context: The Resurgence India v. Election Commission (2014) case held that a wrong declaration is disqualifiable, but an incomplete one is not. Yet, in practice, both are often treated alike.

What Are the Problems in the Existing Process?

1. Excessive Proceduralism
   • Focus on compliance over intent: The system overemphasizes technical correctness of forms rather than substantive eligibility.
   • Example: Minor errors like mismatched affidavits, late filings, or missing entries in Form 26 (assets/liabilities) can lead to disqualification.
2. Discretionary Power and Arbitrary Rejection
   • Unilateral authority: ROs can reject nominations without appeal or review, creating room for bias or manipulation.
   • Violation of Article 326: Denies both the candidate’s right to contest and the voter’s right to choose.
3. Delay and Lack of Rectification
   • No correction window: Candidates have no opportunity to correct clerical errors before rejection.
   • Contrast: Countries like the UK and Canada allow rectification before the final list is published.
4. Facilitation vs Filtration
   • Wrong design philosophy: The nomination process should facilitate participation, not filter out candidates on hyper-technical grounds.
   • Outcome: Bureaucratic compliance is rewarded over democratic legitimacy.

How Have Other Democracies Addressed This?

1. UK Model: Allows candidates to correct nomination papers within a defined time.
2. Canada: Uses a post-scrutiny correction period to avoid unjust disqualifications.
3. United States: Courts can overturn wrongful exclusions promptly through expedited hearings.

These systems treat nomination scrutiny as an inclusive process ensuring access, not exclusion, emphasizing facilitation over filtration.

What Can Be Done to Reform the Process?

1. Institutional Reform
   • Independent Review Mechanism: Introduce an appeal or review system within 24 hours for rejected nominations.
   • Digital Scrutiny System: Online form submissions and auto-validation to reduce human error and bias.
2. Procedural Reforms
   • Correction Period: Allow 48-hour correction for minor defects, akin to GST return rectifications.
   • Uniform Scrutiny Guidelines: Draft model SOPs by the Election Commission for all states.
3. Accountability Reforms
   • Recordable Decisions: ROs must record written reasons for rejections; such records should be reviewable by the ECI.
   • Transparency Measures: Make all nominations, scrutiny notes, and rejections publicly available online.

Conclusion

India’s electoral democracy must evolve from a bureaucratic to a participatory model. The nomination process, meant to protect electoral integrity, should not become an instrument of disenfranchisement. Reform should focus on substantive eligibility, procedural fairness, and digital transparency. This ensures that every qualified citizen has a fair opportunity to contest preserving the spirit of democracy envisioned in the Constitution.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2017] To enhance the quality of democracy in India, the Election Commission of India has proposed electoral reforms in 2016. What are the suggested reforms and how far are they significant to make democracy successful?

Linkage: Electoral reforms in specific and Election Commission in particular is a recurring theme in UPSC mains exam. This 2017 PYQ covers procedural and legal reforms including nomination scrutiny, transparency in funding, and fair competition.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now