Form 26 and the statutory mandate

On June 12, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the decision of the Returning Officer not to accept Meenakshi Natarajan's nomination for the Rajya Sabha election from Madhya Pradesh. The Returning Officer claimed that Natarajan had failed to disclose a pending criminal complaint against her in her Form 26 affidavit, thereby concealing material information.

The criminal complaint, filed in 2025, alleged that Natarajan did not take appropriate action against a party leader accused of misconduct. This case raises questions about the scope of disclosure obligations for electoral candidates and the constitutional options available when nomination papers are rejected. The statutory requirement for candidates to disclose their criminal antecedents was introduced in 2002 through Section 33-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v.

Association for Democratic Reforms (2002). This decision held that mandatory disclosure was necessary to uphold the electorate's right to make informed choices and ensure the integrity of the electoral process. The Election Commission was subsequently directed to require candidates to disclose specified criminal antecedents, assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications through an affidavit using Form 26.

However, in 2018, the government amended Form 26 to require disclosure of all pending criminal cases, regardless of whether charges had been framed, which diverged from the original intent of the statute. The current controversy stems from the apparent discrepancy between the parent statute and the delegated legislation, which mandates disclosure of all pending criminal cases.