In Form-26, besides other information, candidates are required to disclose all pending criminal cases against them and details about cases of any past conviction.
Soon thereafter, Section 33A of the Representation of Peoples (RP) Act was enacted to give citizens the right to know about the candidates’ criminal record.
In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that the right provided for by parliament under Section 33A in regard to the disclosure of a candidate's pending criminal cases and past involvement in such cases was reasonably adequate to safeguard the voter's right to information.
Significantly, also ruled that there was no good reason for excluding pending cases - in which cognizance had been taken by courts - from the ambit of disclosure.
This changed in 2018, when the Supreme Court ruled that nomination papers can be rejected if the affidavit is filed with blank columns.
In order to purify the Indian electoral system, the Supreme Court has recognised the right of a citizen to know the criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities, and educational qualifications of a candidate as a fundamental right.
In 2002, the top court in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to ask candidates contesting for parliament and state assembly elections to file affidavits disclosing whether they have been convicted, acquitted or discharged in any criminal case.
As per the ruling, candidates were also required to disclose any pending criminal case involving an offence punishable with imprisonment of two years or more, where either charges had been framed or the court had taken cognizance of the offence.
This led to the issuance of Form-26 by the ECI under the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. In Form-26, besides other information, candidates are required to disclose all pending criminal cases against them and details about cases of any past conviction.
Soon thereafter, Section 33A of the Representation of Peoples (RP) Act was enacted to give citizens the right to know about the candidates’ criminal record.
In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that the right provided for by parliament under Section 33A in regard to the disclosure of a candidate's pending criminal cases and past involvement in such cases was reasonably adequate to safeguard the voter's right to information.
Significantly, also ruled that there was no good reason for excluding pending cases - in which cognizance had been taken by courts - from the ambit of disclosure. Such an exception had earlier been created by Section 33A.
However, the Court also said that nomination papers cannot be rejected on the ground of furnishing wrong information or suppressing material information.
This changed in 2018, when the Supreme Court ruled that nomination papers can be rejected if the affidavit is filed with blank columns. The Court said that the candidate must take the minimum effort to explicitly remark as ‘NIL’ or ‘Not Applicable’ or ‘Not known’ in the columns and not to leave the particulars blank.
“If a candidate fails to fill the blanks even after the reminder by the Returning Officer, the nomination paper is fit to be rejected. We do comprehend that the power of Returning Officer to reject the nomination paper must be exercised very sparingly but the bar should not be laid so high that the justice itself is prejudiced,” the Court ruled.
