PUBLIC INTEREST FOUNDATION VS UNION OF INDIA : CASE SUMMARY
The Supreme Court in Public Interest Foundation Vs Union of India (2018) 10 SCR 141 issued directions to contesting candidates as well as political parties to share several material information about criminal antecedents for curbing criminalization of politics.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Public Interest Foundation filed Writ Petition before the Supreme Court of India seeking several directions for curbing criminalization of politics. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether disqualification for membership can be laid down by the Court beyond Article 102 (a) to (d) and the law made by the Parliament under Article 102 (e). The matter was referred to the Constitution Bench.
FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court observed that it is clear as crystal that as regards disqualification for being chosen as a member of either House of Parliament and similarly disqualification for being chosen or for being a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State, the law has to be made by Parliament. It is well settled in law that Court cannot legislate.
The Supreme Court observed that there is no denial of the fact that the Election Commission has the plenary power and its view have to be given weightage. That apart, it has power to supervise the conduct of free and fair election. However, the said power has its limitations. The Election Commission has to act in conformity with the law made by the Parliament and it cannot transgress the same.
The Supreme Court noted increasing criminalization of politics and recommended to Parliament to bring out a strong law whereby it is made mandatory for the political parties to revoke membership of persons against whom charges are framed in heinous and grievous offences and not to set up such persons in elections, both for the Parliament and the State Assemblies. This would go a long way in achieving decriminalization of politics and usher in an era of immaculate, spotless and unsullied and virtuous constitutional democracy.
The Supreme Court also issued following directions :
(i) Each contesting candidate shall fill up the form as provided by the Election Commission and the form must contain all the particulars as required therein
(ii) It shall state in bold letters with regard to the criminal cases pending against the candidate.
(iii) If a candidate is contesting an election on a ticket of a particular party, he/she is required to inform the party about the criminal cases pending against him/her
(iv) The concerned political party shall be obligated to put up on its website the aforesaid information pertaining to candidates having criminal antecedents.
(v) The candidates as well as the concerned political party shall issue a declaration in the widely circulated newspapers in the locality about the antecedents of the candidates and also give wide publicity in the electronic media.
