Comedian Shyam Rangeela’s Nomination from Varanasi Rejected by EC
The Election Commission of India (ECI) on May 15 rejected comedian Shyam Rangeela’s nomination from Uttar Pradesh’s Varanasi parliamentary constituency, stating that it was “incomplete.”
Varanasi, from where Prime Minister Narendra Modi is seeking a third term, is scheduled to vote in the last phase of the Lok Sabha elections on June 1.
The 29-year-old stand-up comic from Rajasthan, who shot to fame for impersonating the Prime Minister, had submitted his nomination papers as an independent candidate. He had been alleging difficulties in submitting his nomination since May 10.
After the rejection of his nomination, Mr. Rangeela in a video message on X alleged that citizens were being deprived of their right to contest polls and that while he did not hope to win, he wanted to send out a message.
Explaining why he decided to contest against PM Modi, Mr. Rangeela had earlier said, “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.”
Mr. Rangeela’s Claims
Mr. Rangeela has claimed 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. However, on the next day, which was earmarked for the scrutiny of nominations filed in the constituency, the RO told him that his nomination was rejected since he had not been administered any oath — a crucial prerequisite for nomination.
According to Mr. Rangeela, he and other aspirants were not allowed to enter the District Magistrate’s office when they tried to file their nominations on May 13. Then on the next day, i.e. on May 14 — the day the Prime Minister was also slated to file his nomination, he claimed that he was not allowed to enter the office till the last minute. Finally, at 2.58 pm, 2 minutes before the deadline, his nomination paper was accepted. However, it was pointed out to him that a required document was missing, which he submitted later that day.
He alleges that the RO did not tell him about any other requirement including that of an “oath and affirmation” till his nomination was rejected.
In a video message on X, Mr. Rangeela alleged that “the Election Commission has made elections in Varanasi a game.” Having submitted “all the required documents,” he questioned why they had accepted them in the first place, if the nomination wasn’t going to be approved.
Responding to these claims, Varanasi District
Magistrate and Returning Officer (RO) S Rajalingam said that the nomination papers had been scrutinised in Mr. Rangeela’s presence and that he had been informed of the “deficiencies.” “Your nomination paper has been cancelled because the affidavit submitted by you was incomplete and you did not take the oath/affirmation, a copy of the order of which has also been made available to you,” a post on the RO’s official X handle read.Out of the 41 nominations filed in Varanasi, 33 of them were rejected, with only seven candidates contesting elections this time. This includes PM Modi, his Congress opponent Ajay Rai, and the Bahujan Samaj Party’s candidate Ather Jamal Lari.
The nomination process starts immediately after the ECI publishes a gazette notification
for that concerned phase. 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.The candidate is required to obtain the prescribed nomination form (Form 2A) from the RO of the constituency and fill in personal details such as name, age, address, and electoral roll information. An affidavit (Form 26) declaring details of any criminal antecedents, and other particulars such as financial assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications must also be attached.
The candidate must sign the nomination form in the presence of the concerned RO and submit it no later than 3 p.m. on the last date for making nominations. As per the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951, every candidate must deposit a certain security amount. To contest a parliamentary election, the amount is ₹25,000 for general candidates and ₹12,500 for candidates from SC/ST categories. However, documentary proof of being a SC/ST candidate must be submitted to the satisfaction of the RO.
Moreover, the nomination form must be signed by a certain number of proposers. While one proposer is needed for recognised political party candidates, ten proposers are required from the same constituency for independent candidates.
As per Article 84 (a) of the Constitution
, a citizen who wishes to contest elections must take an oath in the presence of the RO or any other ECI-authorised 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 prescribed format for taking the oath has been outlined in the Third Schedule of the Constitution.The handbook mandates that the oath has to be taken after the filing of the nomination papers and before the date fixed for scrutiny of the nomination. This means that for the Varanasi constituency, candidates had to take the oath before May 15.
Importantly, the guidelines laid out in the handbook instruct ROs to “advise the candidate to make the oath or affirmation immediately after presenting their nomination papers and in any case not later than the day previous to the date of the scrutiny.” It further mentions that if the RO finds out that the oath has not been taken during the preliminary examination of the papers, then the same should be clearly mentioned at the bottom of the checklist, indicating the time limit by when this can be submitted.
The Supreme Court in a catena of decisions such as Pasupati Nath Singh v. Harihar Prasad Singh (1968) and Khader Khan Hussain Khan and others v. Nijalingappa (1969) has reaffirmed that the oath must be taken by the candidates before the commencement of the date of scrutiny of nominations and cannot be administered on that day itself.
