Judgments

UNION OF INDIA VS ASSOCIATION OF DEMOCRATIC REFORMS : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Association of Democratic Reforms (2002) 3 SCR 696 held that members of democratic society have right to know material information regarding candidates seeking election to Parliament and State Legislatures and  directed Election Commission for seeking several information from such candidates.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Association for Democratic Reforms filed Petition before the Delhi High Court for implementation of recommendation made by Law Commission of India in its 170th Report. It was pointed out that Law Commission has made recommendations for debarring a candidate from contesting an election if charges have been framed against him by a Court in respect of certain offences and  making it necessary for a candidate seeking to contest elections to furnish details regarding criminal cases, if any, pending against him.  It has also suggested that true and correct statement of assets owned by the candidate, his/her spouse and dependent relations should also be disclosed. After considering the relevant submissions and reports as well as the view of the Election Commission, the High Court held that for making a right choice, it is essential that the past of the candidate should not be kept in dark as it is not in interest of democracy and well being of the country. The High Court directed the Election Commission to secure several information for candidates seeking election  to Parliament or State Legislature.

Union of India challenged said order before the Supreme Court of India.

FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court noted that it cannot give directions for amending the Act or Statutory Rules. However, it is equally well settled that when the Act or Rules are silent on a particular subject and the Authority implementing the same has constitutional power or statutory power to implement it the Court can necessarily issue directions or orders on the said subject to fill the vacuum or void till the suitable law is enacted.

The Supreme Court observed that the jurisdiction of the Election Commission is wide enough to include all powers necessary for smooth conduct of elections and the word “elections” is used in a wide sense to include the entire process of election which consists of several stages and embraces many steps. The limitation on plenary character of power is when the Parliament or State Legislature has made a valid law relating to or in connection with elections, the Commission is required to act in conformity with the said provisions. In case where law is silent, Article 324 is a reservoir of power to act for the avowed purpose of having free and fair elections.

The Supreme Court observed that the members of a democratic society should be sufficiently informed so that they may influence intelligently the decisions which may affect themselves and this would include their decision of casting votes in favour of a particular candidate. If there is a disclosure by a candidate,  it  would strengthen the voters in taking appropriate decision of casting their votes.

The Supreme Court observed that democracy cannot survive without free and fair election, without free and fairly informed voters. Votes cast by uninformed voters in favour of X and Y candidate would be meaningless. One sided information, disinformation, misinformation, and non-information all equally create an informed citizenary which makes democracy farce. Casting a vote by misinformed and non-informed voter or a voter having one-sided information only is bound to affect the democracy seriously. Freedom of speech and expression includes right to impart and receive information which includes freedom to hold opinions. Entertainment is implied in freedom of speech and expression and there is no reason to hold that freedom of speech and expression would not cover right to get material information with regard to a candidate who is contesting election for a post which is of utmost importance in the democracy.

The Supreme Court directed Election Commission to call for following information on affidavit in exercise of its power under Article 324 of the Constitution of India from each candidate seeking election to Parliament or State Legislature as a necessary part of his nomination paper:

1.Whether the candidate is convicted/acquitted/discharged of any criminal offence in the past, if any, whether he is punished with imprisonment or fine?

2.Prior to six months of filing of nomination, whether the candidate is accused in any pending case or any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more and in which charge is framed or cognizance is taken by this Court of law, if so details thereof.

(3) The assets (immovable, movable, bank balances etc.) of a candidate and of his/her spouse and that of dependants.

(4) Liabilities, if any, particularly whether there are any over dues of any public financial institution or Government dues

(5) The educational qualifications of the candidates

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate based at Delhi. He has rich experience in civil, criminal, commercial, arbitration and corporate insolvency matters. He regularly appears before District Courts, NCLT, NCLAT, High Court and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *