India's Electoral Nomination Process: Challenges and Recommendations

The article addresses the flaws in India's electoral nomination process, highlighting the misuse of procedural technicalities that can disqualify candidates unfairly, and suggests potential reforms for a more democratic system.

Current Issues in Nomination Process

• The discretionary power of the Returning Officer (RO) under Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act (RP), 1951, allows for rejection of nominations on technical grounds without substantial review before polling.
• The law lacks clear guidelines on what constitutes "defects of a substantial character," leading to arbitrary and potentially politically motivated rejections.
• Supreme Court mandates for detailed affidavits have added complexity, leading to more opportunities for rejections based on technicalities.

Common Procedural Traps

• The Oath Trap: Candidates must take an oath at a specific time and place; failure to do so results in rejection.
• The Treasury Trap: Security deposits must be correctly timed and formatted; any error results in disqualification.
• The Notarisation Trap: Affidavits need specific notarisation; missing it leads to rejection.
• The Certificate Trap: Various no-dues and clearance certificates are required, making each issuing office a potential point of delay and rejection.

Comparative International Practices

• In the UK, ROs assist candidates in correcting errors before deadlines.
• Canada allows a 48-hour period to rectify mistakes.
• Germany provides written notifications of errors and time for corrections, along with multiple appeal layers.
• Australia encourages early submissions to allow for corrections.

Proposed Reforms

• Shift the RO's role from discretion to duty, requiring them to provide detailed written notices of errors with a guaranteed 48-hour correction window for candidates.
• Classify deficiencies into three categories: 
  1. Technical or paperwork defects which should not justify rejections.
  2. Matters requiring verification which need investigations before rejections.
  3. Constitutional and statutory bars leading to immediate disqualification.
• Implement a digital-by-default nomination system to reduce reliance on paperwork and prevent disqualifications due to minor errors.
• Public dashboards should display nomination progress, ensuring transparency and fairness.

Conclusion

The current nomination process in India is criticized for being susceptible to manipulation and exclusion. A shift towards a more transparent, fair, and inclusive system is recommended, aligning with global best practices. This would ensure the right to contest and the voters' right to choose are preserved, fostering a healthier democracy.