Form 26 and the Statutory Mandate: Can a Form Demand More Than the Law?

Source: Original editorial ↗ The Hindu

Resources for this Article

Download PDF Print-ready A4 notes · Free

The Lift Line

“Can delegated legislation, under the guise of prescribing the manner of disclosure, enlarge a substantive statutory obligation?”

Why This Editorial Matters for Your Exam

Vanshaj Azad, an advocate and law clerk-cum-research associate at the Supreme Court, uses a Rajya Sabha nomination dispute to raise two textbook questions: the limits of delegated legislation, and the bar on judicial intervention in elections under Article 329(b). Both sit squarely in the GS2 syllabus, and both are regularly examined through the lens of electoral reform. Read it with our July editorial on whether voting is a constitutional right, which set out the Ponnuswami line of cases.

GS Paper 2: Salient features of the Representation of the People Act; electoral reforms; separation of powers and delegated legislation; judiciary.

Background and Context

The case. On 12 June 2026 the Supreme Court dismissed a petition by Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan challenging the rejection of her nomination for the Rajya Sabha election from Madhya Pradesh. The Returning Officer had held that she failed to disclose, in her Form 26 affidavit, a criminal complaint pending against her since 2025, and had thus suppressed material information. The Court relied on N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (1952) and gave her liberty to file an election petition under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA).

How disclosure became law.

Step	What happened
Union of India v. ADR (2 May 2002)	The voter has a right to know a candidate’s criminal antecedents, assets, liabilities and education; the Election Commission was directed to require disclosure
RP (Third Amendment) Act, 2002	Inserted Section 33A (disclosure of criminal antecedents), Section 33B (no disclosure beyond the Act), Section 75A (assets of elected members) and Section 125A (penalty for a false affidavit or concealment)
PUCL v. Union of India (13 March 2003)	Struck down Section 33B, holding that the voter’s right to information under Article 19(1)(a) could not be capped by statute
Rule 4A, Conduct of Election Rules, 1961	Every candidate files an affidavit in Form 26 with the nomination paper
2018	Paragraph 5 of Form 26 amended to require disclosure of all pending criminal cases. The same year, in Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (September 2018), the Supreme Court directed candidates and parties to publicise criminal antecedents widely

The mismatch. Section 33A asks for cases in which the candidate is accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment of two years or more and in which a court has framed charges, plus past convictions. Form 26 now asks for every pending case, charged or not. The author calls this a delegated rule enlarging a statutory duty.

The Analysis

1. A form cannot outrun its Act. Subordinate legislation is valid only within the limits of its parent statute. Rule 4A exists to implement Section 33A; if the form under it creates a wider obligation, and non-compliance can cost a candidate the right to contest, a procedural instrument is doing substantive work.

2. But the Act is not the only source of the duty. This is the complication the column does not fully address. ADR rested disclosure on Article 19(1)(a) and the Election Commission’s powers under Article 324, and PUCL struck down the statutory attempt to cap disclosure. So the wider form may draw on a constitutional right, not merely on Section 33A.

3. The consequence is the real issue. Disclosure of an uncharged complaint informs voters. Rejecting a nomination for omitting it is a far harsher outcome. Courts have held that incomplete affidavits can be rejected (Resurgence India v. Election Commission, 2013) and that concealing criminal cases can amount to undue influence, a corrupt practice (Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar, 2015). The question is whether a complaint without framed charges is “material” in the same way.

4. The Ponnuswami wall. Article 329(b) says no election shall be called in question except by an election petition. Ponnuswami read “election” as the whole process from notification to result, so a rejected candidate must wait for the result and then sue. That protects the timetable, but it means an arbitrary rejection stands for the entire election.

5. What the author proposes. Revisit Ponnuswami so that Articles 32 and 226 remain available when a Returning Officer’s decision is “patently without jurisdiction”. Courts have been wary of this, because any exception invites a flood of pre-election litigation.

Data and Institutions Vault

Prelims-grade facts:

The statute:

• Section 33A, RPA 1951: disclosure of cases with framed charges for offences punishable with two years or more, and past convictions.
• Section 33B (no disclosure beyond the Act) was struck down in PUCL (2003).
• Section 125A: false affidavit or concealment, punishable with up to six months’ imprisonment, a fine, or both.
• Section 75A: declaration of assets and liabilities by elected members.
• Section 100: grounds for declaring an election void, including improper rejection of a nomination.

The cases:

• ADR (2002): voter’s right to know antecedents; PUCL (2003): Section 33B struck down.
• Resurgence India (2013): blank columns in an affidavit can lead to rejection.
• Krishnamoorthy (2015): non-disclosure of criminal cases can be undue influence.
• N.P. Ponnuswami (1952): Article 329(b) bars courts until the election is over.

Prelims, the traps:

• Form 26 is prescribed by Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, not by the RPA itself.
• Election petitions are heard by the High Court, not the Election Commission.

⚠️ Watch the trap: “Section 33A requires disclosure of all pending cases” is false. The statute’s trigger is framed charges in serious offences; the wider requirement comes from the form.

The Debate

For the author’s view. The rule of law requires that a burden as serious as disqualification from contesting be imposed by Parliament, not by a form. Candidates face politically motivated complaints; making every uncharged complaint a trap for rejection invites misuse.

Against it. The voter’s right to know is constitutional, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly widened disclosure. A complaint may be relevant to a voter’s choice even before charges are framed, and candidates can simply disclose it, with an explanation.

The balanced verdict. Keep wide disclosure, because it serves voters, but align the statute with it so that the obligation rests on law, and reserve rejection for substantial defects such as blank or false entries rather than good-faith omissions of uncharged complaints.

How to Think About This

Separate three questions. What must be disclosed (the right to know)? Where does the duty come from (statute, Constitution or rule)? What is the penalty for failing (rejection, prosecution under Section 125A, or voiding the election)? Most confusion in this area comes from treating them as one.

Diagram-in-Words

Takeaway Box

• Statute: Section 33A asks for cases with framed charges (2+ years) and convictions.
• Form: Form 26 (Rule 4A), since 2018, asks for all pending cases.
• Author’s claim: a rule cannot enlarge a statutory duty; revisit Ponnuswami for patently arbitrary rejections.
• Counterweight: the right to know under Article 19(1)(a) (ADR, PUCL).
• Fix: amend Section 33A to match, and reserve rejection for substantial defects.

Sources: The Hindu, Representation of the People Act, 1951 (India Code), Election Commission of India

Source: Form 26 and the Statutory Mandate: Can a Form Demand More Than the Law? — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis

Key Arguments at a Glance

Vanshaj Azad argues that Form 26, a form under delegated legislation, now demands disclosure of every pending criminal case although Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act asks only for cases where charges have been framed for offences punishable with two years or more, and that the Supreme Court should revisit the Ponnuswami bar so that patently arbitrary rejections of nominations can be corrected before an election.

✓ Supporting

• On 12 June 2026 the Supreme Court dismissed Meenakshi Natarajan’s challenge to the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh, which the Returning Officer rejected for not disclosing a criminal complaint in her Form 26 affidavit.
• Section 33A was inserted in 2002 after Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002); Form 26 was prescribed under Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 to implement it.
• In 2018, paragraph 5 of Form 26 was amended to require disclosure of all pending criminal cases, going beyond the statutory trigger of framed charges.
• Rule 4A is procedural; it cannot become an independent source of substantive obligations.
• N.P. Ponnuswami (1952) read Article 329(b) to bar courts from intervening once the election process begins, leaving an election petition as the only remedy even for perverse decisions.

⚠ Counter

The voter’s right to know is rooted in Article 19(1)(a); the Supreme Court in PUCL (2003) struck down an attempt to cap disclosure, and later judgments treat concealment of criminal antecedents as a serious matter, so wider disclosure in Form 26 may be a legitimate way of giving effect to that right rather than an excess of delegated power.

→ Way Forward

Parliament should align Section 33A with the disclosure the form requires, or the form should be read down to the statute; and the Supreme Court could clarify a narrow exception to the Ponnuswami bar for rejections that are patently without jurisdiction.