Judgment :-

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. Democracy is a part of the basic structure of our Constitution and rule of law and free and fare election are basic features of democracy. Democracy postulates that there should be periodical elections so that people may be in a position either to re-elect the same representatives or choose new representatives. Democracy also contemplates that elections should be free and fair and the voters should be in a position to vote for the candidates of their choice. The pre-requisite of this is that the elections are not rigged and manipulated and the candidates or their agents are not able to resort to unfair means and malpractices. These are, in substance, the observations made by H.R. Khanna, J. in his concurring judgment in Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain and another [1975 Supp. SCC 1].

2. Sir Winston Churchill described the importance of vote in a democratic election in the following words:

"At the bottom of all tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into a little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper - no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of the point".

3. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [(1978) 1 SCC 405], the Constitution Bench after quoting the words of Sir Winston Churchill, proceeded to add ‘if we may add, the little, large Indian should not be hijacked from the course of free and fair elections by mob muscle methods, or subtle perversion of discretion by men "dressed in little, brief authority". For "be you ever so high, the law is above you".

4. In Lily Thomas v. Speaker, Lok Sabha and others [(1993) 4 SCC 234], the Court elucidated meaning of the term voting in the following words:

"Voting is the formal action of will or opinion by the person entitled to exercise his right on the subject and issue in question. Right to vote means right to exercise the right in favour or against the motion. Such a right implies the right to remain neutral as well."

5. The scope of the citizens right to express his/her opinion through the medium of the franchise was further developed in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and another [(2002) 5 SCC 294 (LB)]. That case emanated from the directions given by Delhi High Court to the Union of India and Election Commission of India (for short ‘the Commission) to implement the recommendations made by the Law Commission in its 170th Report and make necessary changes

in Rule 4 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 [for short, ‘the Rules]. Simultaneously, the Court considered the prayer made in the writ petition filed by petitioner no.1 herein under Article 32 of the Constitution for issue of a direction to the candidates to declare their assets and the facts relating to criminal case, if any, registered or pending against them before the election. After noticing the background in which directions were given by the High Court, this Court framed the following questions:

"1. Whether the Election Commission is empowered to issue directions as ordered by the High Court?

2. Whether a voter -- a citizen of this country -- has right to get relevant information, such as assets, qualification and involvement in offence for being educated and informed for judging the suitability of a candidate contesting election as MP or MLA?"

6. The Court then discussed various facets of the term ‘election and width and amplitude of the Commissions power under Article 324, referred to various judgments including those of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (supra), State of U.P. v. Raj Narain [(1975) 4 SCC 428], Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [(1985) 1 SCC 641], Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi [(1985) 4 SCC 628], Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India [(1996) 2 SCC 752] and laid down seven propositions of which proposition Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 are extracted below:

"1. Th