2002 (5) TMI 820 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether, before casting votes, voters have a right to know relevant particulars of their candidates? 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? Held 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. To maintain the purity of elections and in particular to bring transparency in the process of election, the Commission can ask the candidates about the expenditure incurred by the political parties and this transparency in the process of election would include transparency of a candidate who seeks election or reelection. In a democracy, the electoral process has a strategic role. The little man of this country would have basic elementary right to know full particulars of a candidate who is to represent him in Parliament where laws to bind his liberty and property may be enacted. Under our Constitution, Article 19(1)(a) provides for freedom of speech and expression. Voters speech or expression in case of election would include casting of votes, that is to say, voter speaks out or expresses by casting vote. For this purpose, information about the candidate to be selected is must. Voter s (little mancitizen s) right to know antecedents including criminal past of his candidate contesting election for MP or MLA is much more fundamental and basic for survival of democracy. The little man may think over before making his choice of electing law breakers as law makers.It cannot be said that the directions issued by the High Court are unjustified or beyond its jurisdiction

Issues Involved:
1. Whether voters have a right to know relevant particulars of their candidates before casting votes.
2. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to issue directions in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Whether the Election Commission is empowered to issue directions as ordered by the High Court.
4. Whether a voter has the right to get relevant information about the assets, qualifications, and criminal involvement of candidates.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Voters' Right to Know:
The judgment addresses whether voters have a fundamental right to receive information about the criminal activities, assets, and educational qualifications of candidates contesting elections. The Court held that voters must be informed about the candidates to make an educated decision, as this information is crucial for maintaining the purity of elections and a healthy democracy. The Court emphasized that in a democratic form of government, voters are of utmost importance, and they have the right to elect or re-elect based on the antecedents and past performance of the candidate.

2. High Court's Jurisdiction:
The Court examined whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to issue directions in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was established that while the Court cannot direct amendments to the Act or Rules, it can issue directions to fill the vacuum or void in the absence of specific legislative provisions. The Court stated that it is settled law that no direction can be given contrary to the Act and the Rules, but if the Act or Rules are silent on a particular subject, the Court can necessarily issue directions or orders on the said subject.

3. Election Commission's Power:
The Court discussed whether the Election Commission is empowered to issue directions as ordered by the High Court. It held that the Election Commission has wide powers under Article 324 of the Constitution to ensure free and fair elections. The Court cited previous judgments to affirm that the Commission's powers are plenary and include issuing necessary orders to fill gaps where the law is silent. The Commission can issue directions for disclosure of assets, educational qualifications, and criminal cases involving candidates to ensure transparency and informed voting.

4. Voter's Right to Information:
The Court extensively discussed the right to know as derived from the concept of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It cited various judgments affirming that the right to know is essential for the democratic process and for voters to make informed choices. The Court concluded that the right to information about the candidates' criminal records, assets, and educational qualifications is fundamental and necessary for the survival of democracy.

Conclusion and Directions:
The Court concluded that the directions issued by the High Court were justified but modified them slightly. The Election Commission was directed to call for information on affidavit from each candidate seeking election to Parliament or a State Legislature, including:
1. Criminal convictions or charges.
2. Assets of the candidate, spouse, and dependents.
3. Liabilities, particularly overdues to public financial institutions or government dues.
4. Educational qualifications.

The Election Commission was instructed to draw up norms and modalities to implement these directions within two months. The appeal was partly allowed, and the writ petition was allowed to the extent of the modified directions.

← Previous Next →