Hardeep Singh Puri set to be elected unopposed to Rajya Sabha as rivals' nominations rejected

Hardeep Singh Puri’s Rajya Sabha nomination survived scrutiny, despite objections from two independents and Congress leader Hemant Katare. The returning officer found no violation of the required election rules and accepted all three nomination papers filed by Puri. This clears the main procedural hurdle before the election.

The rivals challenged Puri’s Form-26 affidavit, calling it invalid and incomplete. Returning officer Umesh Kumar Sharma heard those objections and allowed Puri to respond. He concluded that the affidavit and electoral roll details were complete, and that no substantial defect justified rejection.

The two independent candidates did not remain in the contest. Rajkumar Lohani’s nomination was rejected because Form 26 was missing, while Kante Sayanna’s was rejected for incomplete information. Since Puri’s papers were accepted and both rivals were excluded, he is set to be elected unopposed. Katare said he would seek legal action, so the decision could still face a court challenge.

The Rajya Sabha is the Upper House of India’s Parliament. It represents the states and union territories at the national level. Its members are generally elected indirectly, so voters do not usually cast a separate direct vote for a Rajya Sabha candidate. A by-election fills a seat that becomes vacant before the normal term ends.

For a state seat, elected members of the state legislative assembly vote. The election uses proportional representation through the single transferable vote system. Voters rank candidates by preference. A candidate must secure the required quota of votes, and preferences can transfer as counting proceeds. This differs from a general election, where citizens directly choose representatives.

In the case described, the by-election is for Madhya Pradesh’s Rajya Sabha seat. The nomination stage was decisive because Puri’s papers were accepted and both independent challengers were rejected. If no eligible rival remains, the surviving candidate can be declared elected unopposed, subject to the election process and any legal challenge.

Hardeep Singh Puri filed three sets of nomination papers on October 31. These were separate nomination sets for the same Rajya Sabha by-election, and the returning officer examined them during scrutiny. All three were accepted as valid under Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Two independent candidates also entered the contest. Rajkumar Lohani’s nomination was rejected because he did not attach the mandatory Form-26 affidavit. Kante Sayanna’s nomination was rejected because it contained incomplete information. Their rejections removed both listed rivals from the contest.

The figures matter because Puri’s multiple filing sets did not create multiple candidates. They provided nomination documents for one candidate, all of which were accepted. The two rejected rival nominations left Puri as the only candidate whose papers remained valid. He is therefore expected to be elected unopposed, although Congress leader Hemant Katare said he would move to court against the returning officer’s decision.

Form 26 is the affidavit submitted with an election nomination. It contains disclosures required under election law, including information used to assess a candidate’s background and declarations. A complete affidavit helps the returning officer verify that the nomination meets mandatory legal requirements and gives voters relevant information about candidates.

The scrutiny in this case shows why the form matters. Objectors claimed that Puri’s Form 26 was invalid and incomplete. The returning officer examined the affidavit and related electoral roll particulars, heard the objections, and gave Puri an opportunity to respond. He found the documents complete and accepted Puri’s nominations.

The requirement also affected a rival directly. Rajkumar Lohani’s nomination was rejected because the mandatory Form 26 was not attached. The article does not list every disclosure required in the form, but it makes clear that omitting it can be fatal. A missing or materially defective affidavit may prevent a candidate from continuing in the election.

A returning officer examines whether each nomination satisfies the Representation of the People Act and the required election forms. The check includes the nomination paper, supporting documents, Form 26, and relevant electoral-roll particulars. The officer also considers objections raised by other candidates or parties and gives the concerned candidate a chance to respond.

In this scrutiny, objections claimed that Puri’s affidavit was invalid and incomplete. Umesh Kumar Sharma reviewed the objections and the available documents. He found no breach of Sections 33 or 34, no rejection ground under Section 36(2), and no substantial defect under Section 36(4). He therefore accepted all three of Puri’s nomination papers.

The rival cases show different defects. Lohani had not attached the mandatory Form 26. Sayanna supplied incomplete information. Their nominations were rejected. The decision is important because scrutiny filters out papers that fail essential legal or documentary requirements before the election proceeds.

If Hemant Katare challenges the returning officer’s order, a court would examine whether the scrutiny and acceptance or rejection decisions complied with election law. The challenge could focus on the claims that Puri’s Form 26 was invalid or incomplete, and on whether the officer correctly rejected the rival nominations.

The returning officer’s written order states that the objections were unsubstantiated. It says Puri’s affidavit and electoral-roll details were complete, and that no violation of Sections 33 or 34, or rejection ground under Section 36(2), was established. The order also says no substantial defect existed under Section 36(4). These findings would likely be central to any legal challenge.

The article does not state whether Katare has filed a case, whether a court will stay the election, or what the final outcome would be. For now, Puri remains set to be elected unopposed because both independent nominations were rejected. Any change would depend on later legal proceedings.

Section 33 governs the presentation and basic requirements of nomination papers. Section 34 concerns the security deposit and related nomination conditions. Together, these provisions ensure that candidates submit the required forms, documents, and financial compliance before entering the contest.

Section 36 provides the scrutiny process. The returning officer examines nominations, considers objections, and decides whether papers should be accepted or rejected. Section 36(2) lists grounds on which a nomination may be rejected, while Section 36(4), as cited in the order, concerns defects of a substantial character. These rules distinguish serious legal problems from minor errors.

In Puri’s case, the officer said no violation of Sections 33 or 34 and no Section 36(2) rejection ground had been established. He also found no substantial defect under Section 36(4). By contrast, Lohani lacked the mandatory Form 26, and Sayanna’s information was incomplete. Their nominations were rejected during scrutiny.