Candidate affidavit

Also called: Mandatory disclosure by candidates, Form 26 · Topic: Electoral Reforms: Money, Criminalisation and Simultaneous Elections · NCERT: Class 10, Ch 4 "Political Parties"; Class 11, Ch 6 "Judiciary"

Meaning

A candidate affidavit (Form 26) is a sworn statement that every election candidate must file with the nomination paper (the form a person files to become a candidate). In it, the candidate discloses their criminal cases, assets (what they own), liabilities (what they owe) and educational qualifications. Its legal basis is Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) read with Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 [4].

It matters because it puts the voter's right to know into practice. The Supreme Court read this right into Article 19(1)(a) in Union of India v. ADR (2002). Disclosure is India's main legal answer to the criminalisation of politics, which means people facing criminal cases contesting and winning elections.

Explanation

What the affidavit discloses

• Criminal cases:
• past convictions (cases where a court found the person guilty);

• pending cases (cases still in court) for offences punishable with two years or more, where a court has framed charges (formally accused the person) [3].

• Assets and liabilities of the candidate.

• Educational qualifications.
• Sources of income of the candidate, their spouse and their dependants. This was added after Lok Prahari (2018).
• Later additions to Form 26: the candidate's social-media accounts and PAN.

How it works

1. Filing: the candidate files Form 26 together with the nomination paper.
2. Every column must be filled: under Resurgence India (2013), leaving columns blank can lead to the rejection of the nomination.
3. Bold declaration: under Public Interest Foundation (2018), the candidate must declare criminal cases in bold letters and must inform their party about them.

4. Publicity by the candidate: the candidate must publicise their cases in newspapers and on TV. Under the ECI letter of 16 September 2020, this happens in three blocks of the campaign [3]: - within the first four days after the last date for withdrawing nominations; - between the 5th and 8th days; - from the 9th day until the end of the campaign.

5. Publicity by the party: the party must publish the record and the reasons for choosing the candidate within 48 hours of choosing them (Form C-7). It must then report compliance to the ECI within 72 hours (Form C-8) [3].

Penalty for a false affidavit

• Section 125A, RPA punishes a candidate who [4]:
• fails to give the information required under Section 33A;
• gives false information; or

• conceals (hides) information.

• Punishment: jail for up to six months, or a fine, or both [4].

• Hiding criminal cases can also cancel an election: in Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar (2015), the Court held that hiding criminal antecedents is "undue influence" on voters. Undue influence is a corrupt practice (an illegal election act listed in the RPA), so the election can be set aside.

Limits

• No one checks the facts: NCERT (Class 10) notes that "there is no system to check if the information given is true".
• Weak penalty: at most six months in jail. This does not stop false affidavits [4][5].
• Disclosure is not disqualification: a pending charge, however serious, does not stop anyone from contesting.
• Numbers keep rising: Lok Sabha winners with declared criminal cases rose from 24% (2004) to 46% (2024). In 2024, that was 251 of 543 winners.

In the Constitution and practice

• Constitutional source: the right to know a candidate's background comes from Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression). The reasoning is that a voter expresses a choice through the vote, so the voter needs the facts first.
• Statutory source: Section 33A, RPA 1951 read with Rule 4A, Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 [4]. The penalty is in Section 125A [4].

How it developed:

Year	Step	What happened
2002	Union of India v. ADR (2 May)	The Court found the voter's right to know in Art. 19(1)(a). It directed the ECI to collect affidavits on criminal cases, assets, liabilities and education.
2002	RP (Third Amendment) Act	Parliament first used an ordinance (a temporary law made by the President when Parliament is not sitting) and then passed this Act. Section 33A limited criminal disclosure to convictions and charged cases punishable with two years or more [3]. Section 33B said candidates need not disclose anything more, even if a court or the ECI ordered it.
2003	PUCL v. Union of India (13 March)	The Court struck down Section 33B because it took away the voter's right under Art. 19(1)(a). Full disclosure was restored, which led to Form 26.
2013	Resurgence India	Blank columns can lead to rejection of the nomination.
2015	Krishnamoorthy	Hiding criminal antecedents is undue influence, a corrupt practice.
2018	Lok Prahari (16 February)	Candidates must disclose the sources of income of self, spouse and dependants. The Court called for a standing mechanism (a permanent body) to probe unusual growth in legislators' assets.
2018	Public Interest Foundation (Constitution Bench, 25 September)	Criminal cases must be declared in bold letters. Parties must put them on their websites. Cases must be publicised three times in newspapers and on TV.
2020	Rambabu Singh Thakur v. Sunil Arora (13 February)	Parties must publish the candidate's record and their reasons for choosing them on their website, in one local-language and one national newspaper, and on official social media. "Winnability" (the chance of winning) alone is not a valid reason [2][3].
2021	Brajesh Singh v. Sunil Arora (10 August)	CPI(M) and NCP were fined ₹5 lakh each. JD(U), RJD, LJP, INC, BJP and CPI were fined ₹1 lakh each, all over the 2020 Bihar polls. Parties must show the information on their website homepage. The ECI must build a mobile app, run a voter-awareness campaign, create a fund for it and set up a monitoring cell [3].

• ECI enforcement: if a party breaks these rules, it is treated as failing to follow ECI directions under Paragraph 16A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. Under this paragraph the ECI can suspend or withdraw the party's recognition [3].
• Users: ADR (Association for Democratic Reforms), a civil-society group, studies these affidavits. Its studies are the source of the 24% to 46% data.

Don't confuse with

• Section 33A vs Section 33B: Section 33A (what a candidate must disclose) still stands. Section 33B (no disclosure beyond the Act) was struck down in PUCL (2003).
• Disclosure vs disqualification: the affidavit only informs voters, and a candidate with pending charges can still contest. Disqualification follows only a conviction, under Section 8, RPA.
• Form 26 vs Forms C-7/C-8: Form 26 is filed by the candidate with the nomination. Forms C-7 (publication of record and reasons) and C-8 (compliance report to the ECI) are filed by political parties [3].
• False affidavit (Section 125A) vs corrupt practice: a false affidavit is an offence punishable with up to six months in jail [4], but it is not yet a listed corrupt practice. The Law Commission (2014) proposed making it one [5]. Krishnamoorthy (2015) separately treats hiding criminal antecedents as undue influence.

Prelims Hooks

• The voter's right to know a candidate's background flows from Art. 19(1)(a), as held in Union of India v. ADR (2002).
• Form 26 is filed under Section 33A, RPA 1951 read with Rule 4A, Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 [4].
• Trap: PUCL (2003) struck down Section 33B, not Section 33A.
• Section 125A: a false or concealed affidavit carries up to 6 months in jail, a fine, or both [4]. It does not cause automatic disqualification.
• Case–principle pairs:
• Resurgence India (2013): blank columns can lead to rejection.
• Krishnamoorthy (2015): hiding cases is undue influence.

• Lok Prahari (2018): sources of income of self, spouse and dependants.

• Rambabu Singh Thakur (2020): parties publish within 48 hours and report to the ECI within 72 hours. "Winnability" alone is not a valid reason [3].

Mains Points

• Disclosure without teeth:
• No one checks whether affidavits are true. Section 125A carries only six months in jail. Parties gave reasons such as "popular" or "social worker" for candidates charged with murder in the 2020 Bihar polls [3].

• Reforms: the Law Commission (Report on Electoral Disqualifications, February 2014, chair Justice A.P. Shah) recommended a minimum of two years in jail, disqualification on conviction and treating a false affidavit as a corrupt practice [5]. The ECI makes the same demand. Other reforms are Lok Prahari's standing mechanism to check asset growth and firm use of Paragraph 16A against parties that do not comply [3].

• Courts have done what Parliament would not do:

• Every step from ADR (2002) to Brajesh Singh (2021) came from the Supreme Court. Parliament's only response, Section 33B in 2002, tried to limit disclosure.

• This raises a separation-of-powers question: should courts frame election rules? It also shows that Parliament has been unwilling to clean up politics.

• Disclosure vs disqualification:

• Disclosure respects the presumption of innocence (a person is treated as innocent until proved guilty) and leaves the choice to the voter.
• But the rise from 24% (2004) to 46% (2024) shows that disclosure alone has not changed the behaviour of voters or parties. This strengthens the Law Commission's proposal to disqualify a candidate once charges are framed, with safeguards [5].
• Lasting change also needs inner-party democracy, cleaner political funding and fast-track courts for cases against MPs and MLAs.

Related concepts

• Criminalisation of politics
• Vohra Committee (1993)
• ADR case
• PUCL disclosure case
• Section 125A of the RPA 1951
• Lok Prahari case
• Rambabu Singh Thakur case

Read more

• Criminalisation of politics I: disclosure and the voter's right to know