Why the nomination process needs reform

Source: The post “Why the nomination process needs reform” has been created, based on “Why the nomination process needs reform” published in “The Hindu” on 7 November 2025. Why the nomination process needs reform.

UPSC Syllabus: GS Paper -2- Polity & Governance

Context: The Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951 lays down that only qualified candidates can contest elections. However, over time, the nomination process has become overly technical and rigid, with procedural scrutiny often overshadowing the substantive qualifications of candidates. This imbalance has led to controversies, litigation, and questions over the fairness of electoral democracy.

Background

1. The Returning Officer (RO) holds extraordinary discretionary powers during nomination scrutiny.
2. Under Sections 33 to 36 of the RPA, 1951 and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, the RO may reject nomination papers if they are deemed invalid due to procedural or technical defects.
3. However, this scrutiny, meant to ensure integrity, has evolved into a complex bureaucratic exercise that sometimes undermines voters’ choice and democratic participation.

Issues with the Current Nomination Process

1. Excessive Procedural Rigidity

• Even minor technical errors — such as missing details, incomplete forms, or filing delays by minutes — can lead to rejection.
• The focus has shifted from verifying substantive qualifications (e.g., citizenship, age, criminal record) to punishing technical lapses.
• Example: Rejection of nominations for trivial mistakes like wrong columns left blank or incorrect formatting.

2. Discretionary Powers and Lack of Safeguards

• ROs exercise wide discretion, often with limited oversight or appeal mechanisms before elections.
• While intended to prevent fraudulent candidates, these powers have enabled arbitrary decisions and potential misuse.
• Candidates sometimes lose the opportunity to contest even before the public vote is cast, undermining democracy.

3. Inconsistent Standards and Legal Uncertainty

• Courts have occasionally intervened to correct wrongful rejections, but inconsistencies in interpretation
• For instance, in the 2019 elections, several nominations were rejected due to technical oversights, not because candidates were unqualified.

4. Lack of Proportionality

• The system lacks balance — even genuine candidates acting in good faith can be disqualified for minor errors.
• The process places form over substance, focusing on paperwork rather than genuine eligibility.

5. Erosion of Voters’ Right to Choose

• When nominations are rejected on flimsy grounds, voters are denied the right to choose among all eligible candidates.
• This undermines the democratic principle of free and fair elections enshrined in the Constitution.

Comparative Perspective and Best Practices

1. UK: Nominations are verified administratively, not through judicial-style scrutiny.
2. Germany and Australia: Allow correction of minor errors before the deadline, ensuring inclusivity and fairness.
3. Canada: Provides a 48-hour correction period for defective nominations.
4. These models focus on substance, fairness, and transparency, unlike India’s technical and punitive system.

Proposed Reforms

1. Digital and Automated Scrutiny

• Introduce a digital nomination and verification system using facial recognition, ID, and online validation tools.
• Allows real-time correction of errors before the final submission deadline.
• This reduces clerical mistakes and prevents arbitrary rejections.

2. Limiting Discretionary Powers

• Define clear, objective guidelines for ROs to prevent misuse of authority.
• All rejections should be accompanied by a written justification and subject to appeal within a short time frame.

3. “Substantial Compliance” Principle: Adopt a substantial compliance standard, where minor clerical errors do not invalidate nominations if core requirements are met.
4. Transparency and Accountability: Establish a public digital record of accepted and rejected nominations with reasons, enabling transparency and judicial review.
5. Training and Capacity Building: Provide specialised training to ROs and election staff to ensure uniform application of rules and uphold democratic fairness.

Way Forward

1. The Election Commission of India (ECI) must modernise the process, balancing integrity with accessibility.
2. A graded system distinguishing fatal errors (false declarations, ineligibility) from minor procedural mistakes should be institutionalised.
3. Collaboration with law and technology experts can help evolve a 21st-century nomination framework that ensures both procedural rigor and electoral inclusion.

Conclusion: India’s nomination process, though rooted in fairness, has become burdened by procedural formalism. The current system prioritises technical correctness over democratic participation, often disqualifying legitimate candidates and disenfranchising voters. Reform must shift focus from paperwork to principles, ensuring that only substantive disqualifications bar candidacy. A transparent, technology-driven, and humane approach is essential to uphold the spirit of democracy and the voters’ right to choose.

Question: Discuss the challenges in India’s electoral nomination process under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. How can reforms in scrutiny procedures strengthen electoral democracy and uphold the voter’s right to choose?