Should the Returning Officer's power to reject nominations for 'suppression of material information' be circumscribed? Examine with recent examples.

Under Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, the Returning Officer (RO) scrutinises nominations, including the Form 26 affidavit disclosing criminal antecedents [5]. The rejection of Meenakshi Natarajan's Rajya Sabha nomination (2026) shows that this gatekeeping power needs calibration, not removal.

Recent example

• The Madhya Pradesh RO rejected Natarajan's nomination because she did not disclose a private complaint filed in a Telangana court. The complaint named her only for alleged inaction as the party's in-charge for the state [1].
• She argued that Section 33-A requires disclosure only after charges are framed, but no court ruled on this. The Supreme Court held that Article 329(b) bars writs in the middle of an election and left her with an election petition [1].

Why a strong RO power is justified

• Disclosure gives effect to the voter's right to know. The Supreme Court has called criminalisation of politics "extremely disastrous" for democracy [3].
• Criminalisation keeps rising: 46% of Lok Sabha MPs elected in 2024 declared criminal cases, against 30% in 2009 [4]. Scrutiny is the only check that works before the vote.

Why it should be circumscribed

• No materiality test: a trivial complaint is treated the same as a murder charge.
• Weaponisation: rivals can file complaints at the last minute. The Law Commission's 244th Report left out charges framed within a year of scrutiny, and minor offences, from its disqualification proposal. Disclosure has no such filter [2].
• No time to fix errors: the Commission sought a one-week gap between the last date of nomination and scrutiny [2].
• Irreversibility: rejection ends the candidature, and the remedy comes only after results [1].
• Indirect polls: in Rajya Sabha elections the voters are MLAs, who usually know the candidate. The information-gap argument is weakest here.

Way forward

• ECI guidelines defining "material", for example serious offences at the cognizance or charge stage.
• A notice-and-cure opportunity before any rejection.
• Move the deterrence to deliberate lies: make a false affidavit a corrupt practice carrying at least two years' jail and disqualification [2].
• Time-bound disposal of election petitions against rejected nominations.

The RO's power protects electoral integrity, but if it stays undefined it can itself distort the contest. Clear thresholds, due process at scrutiny and stronger penalties after the poll would balance the voter's right to know with free and fair elections, part of the Constitution's basic structure.