• S. Vijaykrishna

Democracies seldom perish through dramatic ruptures alone. More often, they erode gradually through the quiet normalisation of arbitrariness—when institutions entrusted with safeguarding constitutional values begin to inspire doubt rather than confidence. Elections may continue to be held and legislatures may continue to function. Yet when impartiality gives way to discretion and consistency yields to selective interpretation, the democratic spirit that animates these institutions begins to weaken.

The erosion of institutional credibility has become a recurring feature of India’s contemporary political landscape. Institutions envisioned as impartial guardians of constitutional democracy increasingly find themselves at the centre of controversy. Recent debates over electoral rolls, allegations of irregular additions and deletions of voters, controversies surrounding Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercises, and now the rejection of Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s Rajya Sabha nomination have together generated a troubling question: Are India’s electoral institutions becoming increasingly discretionary in their functioning?

The Election Commission announced Rajya Sabha elections for 24 seats across 10 states, including Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand. While such elections are generally viewed as routine exercises in parliamentary democracy, the contest in Madhya Pradesh has ignited a wider debate about institutional credibility and the meaning of free and fair elections.

It is against this backdrop that the rejection of Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh assumes significance far beyond the fortunes of an individual candidate. A former Member of Parliament from Mandsaur and AICC in-charge, Natarajan is widely regarded for her simplicity, integrity, and unwavering ideological commitment. The rejection of her nomination has raised fundamental questions about electoral integrity, procedural fairness, and constitutional morality in contemporary India.

The election was initially expected to be a routine contest. While the BJP possessed sufficient numerical strength to secure two of the three Rajya Sabha seats from Madhya Pradesh, the Congress, with 63 MLAs against the 58 required for victory, appeared comfortably positioned to win the remaining seat. The political equation, however, became considerably more contentious when the BJP fielded a third candidate despite lacking the legislative numbers necessary to secure an additional seat.

The situation took a dramatic turn when objections were raised by a BJP candidate alleging that Natarajan had concealed details of a case lodged against her in Telangana. Acting on the objection, the Returning Officer rejected her nomination on June 9. The sequence of events immediately generated controversy regarding whether procedural mechanisms had been employed to produce an outcome that the numerical composition of the Assembly might not otherwise have permitted.

The legal basis of this decision warrants serious scrutiny.

The alleged omission related to a private complaint filed in Hyderabad in 2025. While Meenakshi Natarajan was named as one of the respondents, reports indicate that the complaint was principally against another individual. Crucially, there was reportedly neither an FIR registered against Natarajan nor any criminal charges framed against her by a competent court.

These facts assume significance in light of Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which requires disclosure only in two circumstances: where charges have been framed in a pending case involving an offence punishable with imprisonment of two years or more, or where a candidate has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more. The provision was enacted to enhance transparency regarding serious criminal proceedings, not to penalise candidates on the basis of untested allegations or private complaints.

No FIR had reportedly been registered, no court had taken cognisance of any offence, and no charges had been framed. Recent legal opinion and judicial decisions have similarly emphasised that preliminary proceedings or mere allegations do not automatically constitute a disclosable criminal case under the statutory framework.

Subsequent developments have made the matter even more consequential. On June 12, the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Nampally reportedly returned the private petition filed against Natarajan and six others, citing lack of jurisdiction and clarifying that no criminal case was pending against her in the matter.

While this judicial clarification came after the rejection of her nomination, it has intensified questions regarding whether the original decision was legally sustainable. If no criminal proceedings were pending against Natarajan and no charges had ever been framed against her, an unavoidable question remains: on what basis was her nomination rejected?

An editorial in The Hindu captured the gravity of the issue by observing that the Returning Officer’s position that material facts had been concealed and the nomination papers were incomplete was “not merely a misinterpretation of the law, but an insult to common sense.” Such criticism reflects a broader public anxiety regarding the exercise of discretionary authority within institutions expected to function above partisan considerations.

Questions regarding consistency become even more pressing when viewed alongside reports from Jharkhand, where BJP-backed Independent candidate Parimal Nathwani was reportedly granted an opportunity to rectify discrepancies in his nomination papers after objections were raised regarding errors in the documents submitted. The apparent contrast has contributed to perceptions of uneven procedural treatment, reinforcing concerns about consistency in the application of electoral rules.

This is precisely why the controversy cannot be dismissed as an isolated grievance of an individual or one political party. Equal treatment under established rules is not an administrative preference but a democratic imperative. When similar situations appear to invite dissimilar standards of scrutiny, faith in institutions inevitably diminishes.

Constitutional democracies derive their legitimacy not merely from electoral outcomes but from confidence in the fairness of the processes that produce them. Electoral institutions occupy a unique position in this regard. Their authority rests more on public trust that rules will be applied consistently and impartially. When contentious decisions appear arbitrary or selectively enforced, the resulting damage extends beyond a single controversy to the institution itself.

India celebrates its ability to conduct the world’s largest elections. However, democracy cannot be reduced to the mechanics of voting alone. The legitimacy of elections depends equally upon the fairness of every stage preceding them—nomination, scrutiny, adjudication, and enforcement of rules. Free and fair elections are not merely procedural events; they are manifestations of constitutional morality. They embody the promise that every participant will be judged according to the same rules, applied consistently and without prejudice.

Across the world, contemporary democracies increasingly confront what political scientists describe as democratic backsliding or electoral autocratisation. Unlike the military coups and abrupt authoritarian ruptures that characterised earlier eras, democratic erosion today often occurs through the gradual weakening of institutional safeguards. Elections continue to be held and democratic procedures survive on paper. Yet laws are enforced selectively, procedures are interpreted unevenly, and institutions expected to function as neutral arbiters become subjects of political contestation. The cumulative effect is a steady erosion of democratic institutions.

Democracy ultimately depends not only on the existence of institutions but also on confidence in their fairness. When electoral controversies accumulate and institutional decisions appear inconsistent or opaque, questions inevitably arise as to whether democratic competition is being conducted on a level playing field. Democracies do not cease to exist merely because elections stop being held; more often, they begin to fade when institutional neutrality appears compromised and rules are no longer perceived to be applied without favour. The defence of democracy, therefore, lies not only in the act of casting votes but also in preserving the integrity of the institutions that give those votes meaning.

The controversy surrounding Meenakshi Natarajan’s nomination is therefore about much more than the fate of one candidate or one Rajya Sabha seat. It raises fundamental questions about the integrity of electoral institutions, the credibility of democratic procedures, and the confidence they inspire in a constitutional democracy.

In a democracy, rules must prevail over discretion, and institutional integrity must triumph over expediency. For if democratic institutions are allowed to erode, the greatest casualty will not be a candidature, a political party, or even a single election. It will be the democracy itself. Constitutional democracy is founded upon the principle of citizenship. When democratic institutions lose credibility and constitutional safeguards weaken, it is not merely democracy that suffers, but the very meaning of citizenship.

The author is a National Convener- RGPRS, Indian National Congress.