 |
|
The article details the rejection of the nomination paper of Sarjan Barkati, a religious cleric accused of terrorism, for his failure to submit a signed oath of affirmation swearing allegiance to the Constitution of India. Barkati, who is currently incarcerated in Central Jail, Srinagar, was required to have the oath certificate issued by the prison superintendent and submitted to the returning officer (RO) during the scrutiny of his nomination paper. This is a mandatory requirement for all candidates seeking election in India, as outlined by Article 84(A) of the Constitution.
The procedure for submitting the oath of affirmation is clearly defined. The jail superintendent, acting as the authorized person for the candidate, is responsible for providing a certified copy of the oath to the candidate and sending a written communication to the RO indicating the date the oath was made and subscribed. The original signed copy of the oath is also to be submitted to the RO. Despite being informed of this requirement, neither Barkati's authorized person nor the prison superintendent submitted the necessary documents by the deadline of 11am on Wednesday, leading to the rejection of Barkati's nomination.
This case highlights the importance of adhering to legal procedures in the Indian electoral system. While jailed undertrials accused of terrorism have previously contested elections, they have successfully fulfilled the requirement of providing the oath of affirmation in the correct format. Barkati's failure to do so demonstrates a lack of respect for the legal framework governing elections and reinforces the need for strict adherence to regulations. The rejection of his nomination serves as a reminder that all candidates, regardless of their background or legal status, must comply with the established rules to participate in the democratic process.