Form 26 and Rejected Nominations: What Candidates Must Disclose and Where They Can Challenge a Rejection
A recent opinion piece examines a legal dispute over a Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh that was rejected in June 2026. The Returning Officer (the official who checks nomination papers) rejected it on 9 June 2026.
The ground for rejection: the candidate's Form 26 affidavit (a sworn statement about criminal cases, assets and education) did not mention a private criminal complaint pending in a Telangana court, even though the court had issued a summons on it.
The candidate argued that Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 only requires disclosure of criminal cases in which a court has framed charges, and no charge had been framed in this complaint.
On 12 June 2026, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the candidate's writ petition (a direct petition to the court). It held that Article 329(b) of the Constitution bars courts from stepping into an ongoing election, and that the proper remedy is an election petition.
The candidate then filed an election petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The court issued notices to the Returning Officer and the three members elected to the Rajya Sabha from the state.
The case raises two questions useful for UPSC: how far a candidate's disclosure duty goes, and what remedies exist when a nomination is rejected.
Disclosure of Criminal Antecedents by Candidates (Section 33A and Form 26)
Every person who wants to contest an election to Parliament or a state legislature in India must tell voters certain facts about themselves. This includes their criminal cases, their assets and debts, and their education. They do this through a sworn statement called an affidavit, filed in a fixed format known as Form 26, along with their nomination paper. The idea is simple: a voter has the right to know who they are voting for.
The rejected Rajya Sabha nomination turned on exactly the gap explained above. The candidate relied on the "charge framed" wording of Section 33A, while the rejection relied on the wider demand of Form 26 to list pending cases, including a private complaint in which a summons had been issued. Whether this omission was a "defect of substantial character" under Section 36(4) is now for the High Court to decide.
Article 329(b) and Election Petitions
Article 329(b) of the Constitution says that an election to Parliament or a state legislature can be challenged only through an election petition, filed before the authority and in the manner set by law. In simple words, once an election process starts, courts cannot stop or interrupt it through ordinary cases. Anyone unhappy with how the election was run must wait until the result is declared and then file an election petition. Today, election petitions are heard by the High Court.
The Supreme Court declined to hear the rejected Rajya Sabha candidate's writ petition because Article 329(b) routes such disputes into an election petition. The candidate then filed an election petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, where improper rejection of a nomination is a ground for declaring the election void under Section 100(1)(c).
- Nomination rejected by the Returning Officer on 9 June 2026; Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition on 12 June 2026
- Ground: non-disclosure of a pending private criminal complaint in Form 26
- Section 33A, RPA 1951: disclose pending cases with charge framed (offences punishable with 2+ years) and convictions with 1+ year sentence
- Rule 4A, Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 prescribes Form 26
- Section 36(4): no rejection for a defect not of a substantial character
- Section 125A: up to 6 months' imprisonment, fine, or both for false or hidden information
- Article 329(b): only an election petition can question an election; petition to the High Court within 45 days; appeal to the Supreme Court within 30 days