The mandatory affidavit (Form 26) regime in Indian elections is both a transparency tool and a potential instrument of electoral exclusion. Discuss with examples.

Q. The mandatory affidavit (Form 26) regime in Indian elections is both a transparency tool and a potential instrument of electoral exclusion. Discuss with examples. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Form 26, the affidavit mandated under Rule 4A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, requires every candidate to disclose pending criminal cases, assets, liabilities and educational qualifications [3]. Born of the voter's right to know, it is today both a pillar of electoral transparency and, when applied strictly, a procedural filter on candidature.

Form 26 as a transparency tool - Voter's right to know: Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) held that information about a candidate's antecedents flows from Article 19(1)(a); Form 26 operationalises that ruling [4]. - Informed choice: disclosure covers pending cases, not merely convictions, allowing voters to weigh criminality before the ballot rather than after [3]. - Financial accountability: assets and liabilities of the candidate and dependants are published, enabling scrutiny of disproportionate wealth [3]. - Enforceability: a false or incomplete affidavit is a defect of substantial character, permitting rejection under Section 36(2), RPA 1951, with penal consequences under Section 125A [2].

Form 26 as an instrument of exclusion - Technical omission, terminal consequence: in June 2026 the Rajya Sabha nomination of Congress's Meenakshi Natarajan from Madhya Pradesh was rejected for not disclosing a private complaint in a Telangana court where she had received summons — an unproven allegation at the pre-charge stage [1]. - Altered outcomes: as the sole opposition nominee, her exclusion left the rival candidates elected unopposed, deciding the seats without a contest [1]. - Weak interim remedy: Article 329(b) bars courts from questioning an ongoing election except by election petition [5]; the Supreme Court accordingly refused interim relief and pointed to the post-result petition route before the High Court [1][2]. - Adversarial trigger: scrutiny is often set in motion by objections from rival candidates, allowing procedure to be used competitively.

Form 26 therefore strengthens democracy when it informs voters, but strains it when an omission ends a candidacy without adjudication on merits. A calibrated regime — ECI guidance distinguishing material from trivial omissions, a curable-defect window during scrutiny, and time-bound disposal of election petitions — would preserve disclosure while protecting the right to contest. Transparency and inclusive representation are complementary constitutional goals, not competing ones.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. “SC agrees to hear plea against rejection today”, The Hindu, 12 June 2026 — rejection of Natarajan's nomination for non-disclosure of a summons-stage complaint; SC declined interim relief; seats went uncontested 2. The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act No. 43 of 1951), India Code — Section 36(2) rejection for substantial defect; Section 125A; election petition to the High Court 3. Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 and ECI instructions on filing of affidavit in Form 26 — Rule 4A affidavit; disclosure of pending cases, assets, liabilities, qualifications 4. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294, Supreme Court of India — voter's right to know as part of Article 19(1)(a) 5. The Constitution of India, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice — Article 329(b) bar on interference by courts in electoral matters