IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Though a political party would have freedom of selecting candidates of its choice, though having criminal antecedents, what would be required is to give reasons in support of such selection, and reasons could be dependent on various factors including qualifications, achievements and other merits.
(2) Voter has right to have information as to why a particular political party has chosen a candidate having criminal antecedents and as to why a political party has not chosen a candidate without criminal antecedents.
(3) Apex Court cannot read any implied limitations and issue directions which would indirectly provide for disqualification of a candidate.
(4) Persons with criminal antecedents and who are involved in criminalisation of political system should not be permitted to be law-makers.

Headnote:
(A) Representation of People Act, 1951 – Section 8 – Non-disclosure of criminal antecedents of election candidates by political parties – Voter has right to have information as to why a particular political party has chosen a candidate having criminal antecedents and as to why a political party has not chosen a candidate without criminal antecedents – Such a requirement would only enable voter to have complete information and exercise his right to vote effectively – There are various factors which a political party takes into consideration while selecting a candidate – As a citizen who possesses requisite qualifications and is not disqualified under any of provisions of Constitution or Act of 1951, has a right to contest an election and a voter has a right to vote a candidate of his choice, a political party would also have discretion to choose a candidate of its choice – Possibility of a rival implicating someone falsely, as a political vendetta, is not unknown in country – Though a political party would have freedom of selecting candidates of its choice, though having criminal antecedents, what would be required is to give reasons in support of such selection, and reasons could be dependent on various factors including qualifications, achievements and other merits – Cleansing polluted stream of politics is not one of immediate pressing concerns of legislative branch of Government. (Paras 17, 26, 27 and 28)
(B) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Constitution of India – Article 129 read with Article 142 – Representation of People Act, 1951 – Sections 8 and 30 – Contempt of Court – Non-disclosure of criminal antecedents of election candidates by political parties despite express instruction of Apex Court – In most of cases candidates are finalised by political parties between period commencing from date of notification till last date of withdrawal – There should be no difficulty insofar as requirement to publish details within 48 hours from selection of candidate is concerned – In light of statutory provision as it exists, it would not be possible to follow direction to publish details prior to two weeks before first date of filing of nomination – It will not be permissible for Apex Court to read any implied limitations and issue directions which would indirectly provide for disqualification of a candidate – As protector of constitutional ethos, it cannot usurp power which it does not have – Though Respondent No. 3 to 9, 11 and 12 are guilty of having committed contempt of Order dated 13.02.2020, taking into consideration that these were first elections which were conducted after issuance of directions, Court inclined to take a lenient view in the matter – However, they should be cautious in future and ensure that directions issued by this Court as well as ECI are followed in letter and spirit – Respondent Nos. 3,4,5,6,7 and 11 directed to deposit amount of INR 1 Lakh each in account created by the ECI as specified in this judgment in paragraph 73(iii) within a period of 8 weeks from the date of this judgment – Insofar as Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 are concerned, since they have not at all complied with directions issued by this Court, directed them to deposit amount of INR 5 Lakh each in aforesaid account within aforesaid period. (Paras 33, 34, 50, 57 and 69)
(C) Criminalization of Politics – Remedial Measures – Menace of criminalisation in Indian political system is growing day by day – For maintaining purity of political system, persons with criminal antecedents and who are involved in criminalisation of political system should not be permitted to be law-makers – Apex Court, time and again, has appealed to law-makers of Country to rise to occasion and take steps for bringing out necessary amendments so that involvement of persons with criminal antecedents in polity is prohibited – However, political parties refuse to wake up from deep slumber – Court can only appeal to conscience of law-makers and hope that they will wake up soon and carry out a major surgery for weeding out malignancy of criminalisation in politics – Political parties directed to publish information regarding criminal antecedents of candidates on homepage of their websites, making it easier for voter to get to information that has to be supplied – It will also become necessary now to have on homepage a caption which states “candidates with criminal antecedents” – ECI directed to create a dedicated mobile application containing information published by candidates regarding their criminal antecedents, so that at one stroke, each voter gets such information on his/her mobile phone – ECI directed to carry out an extensive awareness campaign to make every voter aware about his right to know and availability of information regarding criminal antecedents of all contesting candidates – This shall be done across various platforms, including social media, websites, TV ads, prime time debates, pamphlets, etc. – A fund must be created for this purpose within a period of 4 weeks into which fines for contempt of Court may be directed to be paid – Directions issued. (Paras 71, 72 and 73)
Facts of the case:
Contempt petition has been filed in this Court on 06.11.2020, by Petitioner herein, who has brought to the notice of this Court the flouting of its directions given vide Order dated 13.02.2020. Petitioner is an Advocate registered with Bar Council of Delhi and presently practicing in Delhi and basically belonging from the Nalanda District of State of Bihar. As an Officer of the Court and also as a law abiding citizen of this Country the Petitioner has self-obligated duty to apprise this Hon’ble Court regarding wilful disobedience of its order if happening somewhere and especially in the State of Petitioner itself and also where Said Order is related with the large interest of the people who are going to exercise their Constitutional Right “Right to Vote”.
Findings of Court:
ECI cannot said to have committed any contempt of our Order dated 13.02.2020 as circumstances pointed out by him clearly show that the ECI did bring to our notice the flouting of our directions contained in the said order. We must, however, caution the ECI to do so as promptly as possible in future so that prompt action may be taken by this Court, it being understood that the ECI must by itself take prompt action in accordance with the directions contained in this Order.
Result : Directions issued.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

Political parties have the discretion to select candidates, even those with criminal antecedents, but they must provide reasons for their choices, considering factors such as qualifications, achievements, and merits (!) (!) (!) .
Voters have the right to know why a particular candidate with criminal antecedents has been chosen and why others without such antecedents have not been selected, ensuring transparency and informed voting (!) .
The Court cannot impose implied limitations or issue directions that would indirectly disqualify a candidate; such matters are within the domain of legislation (!) (!) .
Candidates with criminal antecedents, especially those involved in serious offences, should not be permitted to be law-makers, emphasizing the need for legislative measures to prevent criminalization of politics (!) (!) .
Political parties are directed to publish information regarding criminal antecedents of their candidates on their websites, including reasons for candidate selection, and to include a caption indicating "candidates with criminal antecedents" (!) (!) .
The Election Commission (ECI) is instructed to create a dedicated mobile application to provide voters with easy access to candidate criminal antecedent information and to carry out awareness campaigns across various media platforms (!) .
The Court emphasizes the importance of transparency in candidate information to enable voters to make informed choices, reinforcing the right to know as fundamental for democracy (!) (!) .
The timing for publishing candidate information should be within 48 hours of candidate selection, rather than two weeks before the first date for filing nominations, to align with statutory provisions and practical considerations (!) (!) .
The Court warns political parties and candidates to comply strictly with directions, and non-compliance may result in contempt proceedings, including monetary penalties (!) (!) .
The Court recognizes the growing issue of criminalization in politics and urges Parliament to enact comprehensive legislation to disqualify individuals with criminal antecedents from contesting elections, but it clarifies that it cannot legislate itself (!) (!) .
Directions for the ECI to monitor compliance and take appropriate action are reinforced, with a focus on ensuring the integrity of the electoral process and transparency (!) .
The Court underscores the separation of powers, stating that it cannot create new disqualifications through judicial directions beyond what legislation provides, emphasizing the importance of legislative action for substantive reforms (!) (!) .
In cases where candidates are involved in criminal cases, the Court advises that the reasons for their selection should be justified and transparent, considering the context and the candidate’s reputation and contributions (!) (!) .
The Court emphasizes that the fundamental right to information and the right to vote are intertwined, and voters must be adequately informed about criminal antecedents to exercise their rights effectively (!) (!) .
The Court directs the Election Commission to issue clear instructions for candidate disclosures, including details of pending criminal cases, convictions, assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications, to promote transparency and accountability (!) (!) .
The Court advocates for legislative measures to disqualify candidates involved in heinous or grievous offences and to streamline criminal trial processes to prevent undue delays affecting electoral integrity (!) (!) .
The Court recognizes the importance of public awareness and education campaigns to inform voters about candidates’ criminal backgrounds and to foster a culture of transparency in electoral politics (!) (!) .
The Court maintains that while criminalization is a significant issue, it cannot overstep its constitutional role to make laws; instead, it calls upon the legislature to enact necessary reforms (!) (!) .
Overall, the judgments highlight the need for transparency, accountability, and legislative action to address the criminalization of politics, while respecting the constitutional separation of powers (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you require further elaboration or specific focus on any aspect.

JUDGMENT :

1. A contempt petition has been filed in this Court on 06.11.2020, by the Petitioner herein, who has brought to the notice of this Court the flouting of its directions given vide Order dated 13.02.2020. The Petitioner describes himself in the said petition as follows:

“That the Petitioner above named is an Advocate registered with Bar Council of Delhi and presently practicing in the Delhi and basically belonging from the Nalanda District of the State of Bihar. As an Officer of the Court and also as a law abiding citizen of this Country the Petitioner has self-obligated duty to apprise this Hon’ble Court regarding wilful disobedience of its order if happening somewhere and especially in the State of Petitioner itself and also where the Said Order is related with the large interest of the people who are going to exercise their Constitutional Right “Right to Vote”.”

2. This Court issued notice on the said contempt petition on 11.02.2021 and recorded that the Election Commission of India [hereinafter referred to as “ECI”] has filed its report in compliance with the Order dated 13.02.2020. Vide a subsequent Order dated 17.03.2021, this Court had directed that Shri K.V. Viswanathan, learned Senior Advocate, be appointed to assist this Court as Amicus Curiae. Shri Viswanathan has since filed a detailed list of dates and submissions.

3. This contempt petition arises out of elections that were held to the Bihar Legislative Assembly in October/November, 2020. The report of the ECI first sets out extracts from our Order dated 13.02.2020 and then brings to the notice of the Court that:

In compliance of the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Judgment and Order dated 13.02.2020 and in pursuance to Commission's directions dated 17.10.2020, as per the report submitted by CEO Bihar [Annexed herewith as Annexure R/3] out of 10 recognized political parties which contested General Elections to the Bihar Legislative Assembly-2020, 08 political parties submitted information about criminal antecedents of the contesting candidates in Format C-8 to the Commission [Annexed herewith as Annexure R/4] and only 02 political parties namely Communist Party of India (Marxist ) and Nationalist Congress Party that fielded 04 and 26 candidates respectively with criminal antecedents, did not furnish the requisite information in the prescribed format to the Commission.

It is pertinent to note that the Commission issued the Press Note announcing the schedule of the General Elections for Bihar Legislative Assembly on 25.09.2020. As per the said schedule, the last date for making nominations was as under:

S.No.	Phase	Last date for filing nominations
1.	Phase I	08.10.2020
2.	Phase II	16.10.2020
3.	Phase III	20.10.2020

The following eight political parties have submitted the requ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(SC) 751

Cases Referred (9)