SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Raj) 620

Supreme Court
Honble M.B. SHAH, BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH & H.K. SEMA, JJ.
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.7178 of 2001
Decided On : May 02, 2002

Advocates Appeared:
Harish N. Salve, Solicitor General, Rajinder Sachhar, Ashwini Kumar, K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocates, Sanjay R. Hegde, Satya Mitra, Aprajita Singh, Advocate for S.N. Terdol, Sanjay Parikh, R.R. Chandrachud, Ranjit Thomas, Javed M. Rao, S.Muralidhar, S.K. Me

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India, Art. 226 and 324 – Power of High Court to give directions to Election Commission that candidate must be directed to furnish necessary information regarding pending criminal cases, about his assets and educational qualifications – Held – Yes, High Court can give directions. (Paras 41 & 46)(b) Constitution of India, Art. 19(1)(a) – Before casting votes, voters have a right to know relevant particulars of their candidates. (Paras 34)

       In our view this Court would have ample power to direct the Commission to fill the void, in absence of suitable legislation, covering the field and the voters are required to be well informed and educated about contesting candidates so that they can elect proper candidate by their own assessment, It is the duty of the executive to fill the vacuum by executive orders because its field is conterminous with that of the legislature, and where there is inaction by the executive, for whatever reason, the judiciary must step in, in exercise of its constitutional obligations to provide a solution till such time the legislature acts to perform its role by enacting proper legislation to cover the field. The adverse impact of lack of probity in public life leading to a high degree of corruption is manifold. Therefore, if the candidate is directed to declare his/her spouses and dependants assets immovable, moveable and valuable articles it would have its own effect. (Para 41)

       If right to telecast and right to view to sport games and right to impart such information is considered to be part and parcel of Article 19(1)(a), we fail to understand why the right of a citizen/voter - a little man - to know about the antecedents of his candidate cannot be held to be a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a)? In our view, democracy cannot survive without free and fair election, without free and fairly informed voters. Votes cast by uninformed voters in favour of X or Y candidate would be meaningless. As stated in the aforesaid passage, one- sided information, disinformation, misinformation and non- information all equally create an uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce. Therefore, casting of a vote by misinformed and non-informed voter, or a voter having one-sided information only is bound to affect and 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. (Para 34)

Honble SHAH, J.–Short but important question involved in these matters is-in nation wedded to republican and democratic form of government, where election as a Member of Parliament or as a Member of Legislative Assembly is of utmost importance for governance of the country, whether, before casting votes, voters have a right to know relevant particulars of their candidates? Further connected question is-whether the High Court had jurisdiction to issue directions, as stated below, in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

(2). Before dealing with the aforesaid questions, we would refer to the brief facts as alleged by the Petitioner-Association for Democratic Reforms in Writ Petition No.72,57 of 1999 filed before the High Court of Delhi for direction to implement the recommendations made by the Law Commission in its 170th Report and to make necessary changes under Rule 4 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. It has been pointed out that Law Commission of India had, at the request of Government of India, undertaken comprehensive study of the measures required to expedite hearing of election petitions and to have a thorough review of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Act) so as to make the electoral process more fair, transparent and equitable and to reduce the distortions and evils that have crept into the Indian electoral system and to identify the areas where the legal provisions required strengthening and improvement. It is pointed out that Law Commission has made recommendation for debarring a candidate from contesting an election if charges have been framed against. him by a Court in respect of certain offences and necessity for a candidate seeking to contest election 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. Petitioner has (ii) also referred Para 6.2 of the report of the Vohra Committee of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, which reads as follows:-

``6.2 Like the Director CBI, the DIB has also stated that there has been a rapid spread and growth of criminal gangs, armed senas, drug Mafias, smuggling gang, drug peddlers and economic lobbies in the country which have, over the years, developed an extensive network of contacts with the bureaucrats/Government functionaries at the local levels, politicians, media persons and strategically located individuals in the non State sector. Some of these Syndicates also have international linkages. including the foreign intelligence agencies. In this context the DIB has given the following examples-

(i) In certain States like Bihar, Haryana and UP, these gangs enjoy the patronage of local level politicians, cutting across party lines and the protection of Governmental functionaries, Some political leaders become the leaders of these gangs, armed senas and over the years get themselves elected to local bodies, State Assemblies and the national Parliament. Resultantly, such elements have acquired considerable political clout seriously jeopardising the smooth functioning of the administration and the safety of life and property of the common man causing a sense of despair and alienation among the people;

(ii) The big smuggling Syndicates having international linkages have spread into and infected the various economic and financial activities, including havala transactions circulation of black money and operations of a vicious parallel economy causing serious damage to the economic fibre of the country. These Syndicates have acquired substantial financial and muscle power and social respectability and have successfully corrupted the Government machinery at all levels and yield enough influence to make the task of Investigating and Prosecuting agencies extremely difficult; even the members of the Judicial system have not es





















































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top