Earlier in his campaign, it was reported that 29-year-old comedian Shyam Rangeela had his nomination rejected by the Election Commission of India (ECI) on May 15. The ECI cited “incomplete” as the reason for disqualifying him from the Varanasi seat, which is Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s choice to seek a third term in office; the final phase of polling is scheduled to hold here on June 1.
This stand-up comic from Rajasthan became popular for mimicking the prime minister but had registered as an independent candidate. Since May 10, he has claimed that there were difficulties in filing his nominations. After being rejected as a candidate, he alleged through a video message on X that people did not have the right to contest and although he did not want to win, he wanted others to hear about it.
In addition Mr Rangeela explained why he chose to run against PM Modi by saying “We saw what happened in Surat and Chandigarh and what is currently happening in Indore. I do not want the same situation to occur in Varanasi. Even if one person wants to vote against a candidate, they have the right to do so. Hence, I decided to contest from Varanasi.”
नॉमिनेशन के पीछे का कारण जो चुनाव आयोग कार्यालय से आपको दिखा रहें है उसकी भी सच्चाई आपके सामने रख रहा हूँ,
लोकतंत्र में उन्हीं को लड़ने का अधिकार है जिन्हें आयोग चुनेगा 🙏🏽💔
— Shyam Rangeela (@ShyamRangeela) May 15, 2024
Mr. Rangeela’s claims
Mr. Rangeela claims that the returning officer (RO) had accepted his nomination papers before 3 pm on May 14, which was the deadline for filing nominations for phase 7 of the Lok Sabha polls. On the next day however, that was slated for scrutiny of nominations filed in the constituency; RO said to him that his nomination was rejected because he had not taken an oath yet – an essential requirement for nomination.
He stated that he and other candidates were stopped from entering into the office of District Magistrate (DM) when they came there to file their nominations on May 13. Then again, on May 14, also a day when prime minister was supposed to have filed his nomination, he claimed that he couldn’t enter in it up until last moment. Finally, at 2:58 p.m., two minutes before deadline time, his Nomination Paper got accepted however it was pointed out to him that one required paper was missing which he submitted later in the same day. He claims that till his Nomination Paper has been re- jected no other condition including “oath and affirmation” were put forward to him by RO.
In a video message shared with X, Mr. Rangeela alleged that “the Election Commission has made elections in Varanasi a game.” Therefore having submitted all documents required why then accept them if they weren’t going with?
वाराणसी से नहीं लड़ने देंगे ये तय था, अब साफ़ हो गया
दिल ज़रूर टूट गया है, हौंसला नहीं टूटा है ।
आप सबके सहयोग के लिए शुक्रिया ।
मीडिया और शुभचिंतकों से निवेदन है कृपया अभी कॉल ना करें, जो भी सूचना होगी यहाँ देता रहूँगा, शायद अब थोड़ी देर बातचीत करने की इच्छा नहीं है pic.twitter.com/aB6AZqLGqv
— Shyam Rangeela (@ShyamRangeela) May 15, 2024
For the ECI’s Handbook for Returning Officer 2023, it is stated that before anything else, the RO must check or verify whether all required affidavits have been filed or not to abate rejection. “Any such incomplete information will be filled up by Returning Officer or the Specified Assistant Returning Officer and the candidate will be given a copy of the checklist against proper receipt”, said the Handbook in its section on preliminary examination of nomination papers. If there are any such cases where some columns are found vacant at other instances then fresh affidavit can be filed by adding information with time limit,” it states.
‘Incomplete’ nomination
The Varanasi District Magistrate and Returning Officer (RO) S Rajalingam disputed these allegations by stating that Mr. Rangeela was present when the nomination papers were being scrutinized, and he had been informed about “deficiencies.”
“You have not taken an oath / affirmation and therefore your nomination paper has been rejected as the affidavit submitted by you is not complete and a copy of this order is also available to you,” the RO wrote.
Out of 41 nominations filed in Varanasi, 33 were rejected leaving only seven candidates for this election. These include PM Modi, his Congress opponent Ajay Rai and Ather Jamal Lari who represents Bahujan Samaj Party.
Process for filing a Lok Sabha nomination
Immediately after the ECI publishes a gazette notification for that concerned phase, the nomination process starts. As per the prescribed eligibility criteria, any Indian citizen who is at least 25 years old and registered as a voter in the current electoral roll can contest polls to the Lok Sabha. A person can be nominated by a political party or as an independent candidate.
For this reason, the candidate needs to acquire this form (Form 2A) from RO of constituency office and then provide details such as name, age etc., and information from electoral roll. Moreover, he has to attach his affidavit in Form 26 which states previous criminal records along with other things like financial assets and liabilities and academic qualification.
The nomination must be signed by the prospective candidate in front of RO no later than 3pm on last date of submission. As per The Representation of People Act, 1951 every candidate should deposit certain security amount. For general candidates during parliamentary election it is ₹25,000 while for SC/ST candidates it is ₹12,500; however proof being an SC/ST candidate has to be provided before RO. Further more; there are some proposers needed to sign on that nomination paper too. In case a political party belongs to recognized one party only requires one propounder however independent ones requires ten proposers from same constituency.
The ‘oath’ requirement
Per Article 84 (a) of the Constitution, a citizen aspiring to contest for the position must take an affirmation in the presence of the Returning Officer (RO) or any other ECI-authorized official to bear “true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, and uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India.” The format for taking such an oath has been given in Third Schedule of the Constitution. The manual states that this oath shall be taken after filing nominations but before scrutiny date. Consequently, for Varanasi constituency, candidates had to swear-in by May 15th.
Importantly, guidelines contained in handbook state that ROs should be referred to “ensure that immediately upon presentation of nomination papers or at latest by day previous to the date fixed for scrutiny, candidate should take oath/affirmation.” It also says that if during preliminary examination of paper it is revealed that oath has not been taken then it will be clearly indicated on bottom side check list showing when it can be submitted.
It has been held by Supreme Court in several cases such as Pasupati Nath Singh v. Harihar Prasad Singh (1968) and Khader Khan Hussain Khan and others v. Nijalingappa (1969) that before the commencement of date fixed for scrutiny candidates have to take oath with respect to their candidature which could not be administered on subsequent day itself.
What can Mr. Rangeela do now?
A duty of substantial significance is cast on him as the Supreme Court in the past has recognised that the scrutiny of nominations by the RO is a quasi-judicial function. This was held in Uttamrao Shivdas Jankar v. Ranjitsinh Vijaysinh Mohite-Patil (2008) when the top Court stated that an improper rejection of nomination papers may lead a party not to enter into the fray of elections, and that the RO’s decision forms “the fulcrum of the democratic process.”
Even so, Handbook for Returning Officers stipulates: “Returning Officer therefore has to discharge this duty with complete judicial detachment and in accordance with the highest judicial standards. Returning Officer must not allow any personal or political predilections to interfere with the procedure that he/she follows or the decision he/she takes in any case. Returning Officer should be fair, impartial and treat all candidates equally.”
In such a case, if they do not agree with their candidate’s rejection by RO; they may want to go ahead and file an election petition against this decision before an appropriate High court.
