REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.

121 OF 2008 Resurgence India Versus Election Commission of India & Anr. .... Respondent(s) .... Petitioner (s)

JUDGMENT
P.Sat a!"#a$% CJI. 1) This rit petition! under Article "# of the Constitution of

India! has $een filed to issue specific directions to effectuate meaningful implementation of the %udgments rendered $& this Court in Union of India 's. Association for

Democratic Reforms and Another (#((#) ) *CC #+, and Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Another 's. Union of India & Anr. (#((") , *CC "++ and also to direct the respondents herein to ma-e it compulsor& for the Returning .fficers to ensure that the affida'its filed $& the

1
Page 1

contestants are complete in all respects and to re%ect the affida'its ha'ing $lan- particulars. Ba&'()*+,-. #) In order to maintain purit& of elections and to $ring

transparenc& in the process of election! this Court! in Association for Democratic Reforms (s pra)! directed the Election Commission of India/Respondent 0o. 1 herein to issue necessar& orders! in e1ercise of its po er under Article "#, of the Constitution! to call for information on affida'it from each candidate see-ing election to the Parliament or a *tate 2egislature as a necessar& part of his nomination paper furnishing therein information relating to his

con'iction3ac4uittal3discharge in an& criminal offence in the past! an& case ith pending against for him # of an& or offence more!

punisha$le

imprisonment

&ears

information regarding assets (mo'a$le! immo'a$le! $an$alance etc.) of the candidate as ell as of his3her spouse

and that of dependants! lia$ilit&! if an&! and the educational 4ualification of the candidate.

2
Page 2

")

Pursuant to the a$o'e order! the Election Commission!

'ide order dated #5.(6.#((#! issued certain directions to the candidates to furnish full and complete information in the form of an affida'it! dul& s orn $efore a 7agistrate of the 8irst Class! ith regard to the matters specified It in as

Association for Democratic Reforms (s pra) .

also directed that non/furnishing of the affida'it $& an& candidate or furnishing of an& rong or incomplete ill

information or suppression of an& material information

result in the re%ection of the nomination paper! apart from in'iting penal conse4uences under the Indian Penal Code! 156(. It as further clarified that onl& such information shall rong or incomplete or suppression of hich is found to $e a defect of

$e considered to $e material information

su$stantial character $& the Returning .fficer in the summar& in4uir& conducted $& him at the time of scrutin& of nomination papers. ,) In Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)

(s pra)! though this Court reaffirmed the aforementioned decision $ut also held that the direction to re%ect the

3
Page 3

nomination papers for furnishing

rong information or

concealing material information and 'erification of assets and lia$ilities $& means of a summar& in4uir& at the time of scrutin& of the nominations cannot $e %ustified. )) Pursuant to the a$o'e! the Election Commission! 'ide dated #9.(".#(("! held its earlier order dated

order

#5.(6.#((# non/enforcea$le

ith regard to 'erification of

assets and lia$ilities $& means of summar& in4uir& and re%ection of nomination papers on the ground of furnishing rong information or suppression of material information. 6) Again! the Election Commission of India! 'ide letter

dated (#.(6.#((, directed the Chief Electoral .fficers of all the *tates and :nion Territories that here an& complaint

regarding furnishing of false information $& an& candidate is su$mitted $& an&one! supported $& some documentar& e'idence! the Returning .fficer concerned should initiate action to prosecute the candidate concerned $& filing formal complaint $efore the appropriate authorit&. B)"/0 0a&t!.

4
Page 4

9)

In the a$o'e $ac-drop! the $rief facts of the case in

hand are as under;/ Resurgence India/the petitioner herein is a non/go'ernmental organi<ation (0=.) registered under the *ocieties Registration Act! 156( and is or-ing for social

a a-ening! social empo erment! human rights and dignit&. >uring Pun%a$ 2egislati'e Assem$l& Elections! #((9! the petitioner/organi<ation undertoo- a massi'e e1ercise under the $anner ?Pun%a$ Election @atchA and affida'its pertaining to the candidates of si1 ma%or political parties in the *tate ere anal&<ed in order to 'erif& their completeness. >uring such campaign! large scale irregularities of the affida'its filed $& the candidates. 5) .n (+.(#.#((9! the petitioner/organi<ation made a ere found in most

representation to the Election Commission of India regarding large num$er of non/disclosures in the affida'its filed $& the contestants in the *tate of Pun%a$ and poor le'el of scrutin& $& the Returning .fficers. Vide letter dated #(.(#.#((9! the Election Commission of India e1pressed its ina$ilit& in re%ecting the nomination papers of the candidates solel& due to furnishing of false3incomplete information in the affida'its

5
Page 5

in 'ie

of the %udgment in Peoples Union for Civil

Liberties (PUCL) (s pra). +) Being aggrie'ed of the same! the petitioner/

organi<ation has preferred this petition for the issuance of a rit of mandamus to ma-e it compulsor& for the Returning .fficers to ensure that the affida'its filed $& the contestants should $e complete in all respects and to re%ect those nomination papers hich are accompanied $&

incomplete3$lan- affida'its. The petitioner/organi<ation also pra&ed for deterrent action against the Returning .fficers in case of acceptance of such incomplete affida'its in order to remo'e deficiencies in the format of the prescri$ed affida'it. 1() Ceard 7r. Prashant Bhushan! learned counsel for the petitioner/organi<ation! 7s. 7eena-shi Arora! learned

counsel for the Election Commission of India/Respondent 0o. 1 herein and 7r. A. 7ariarputham! learned senior counsel for the :nion of India. P)a1/)2R/3"/0 S*+( t 0*). Sta,- *0 t / P/t"t"*,/)4O)(a,"5at"*,.

6
Page 6

11) The Petitioner/organi<ation pleaded for issuance of appropriate rit3direction including the rit of mandamus

directing the respondents herein to ma-e it compulsor& for the Returning .fficers to ensure that the affida'its filed $& the candidates are complete in all respects and to re%ect those nomination papers! affida'its. Sta,- *0 t / E3/&t"*, C*$$"!!"*, *0 I,-"a. It is the stand of the Election Commission of India that the %udgment in Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) (s pra) does not empo er the Returning .fficers to re%ect the nomination papers solel& due to furnishing of hich are accompanied $& $lan-

false3incomplete3$lan- information in the affida'its signed $& the candidates. In succinct! the& put forth the argument that the& do not ha'e an& latitude for re%ecting the nomination papers in 'ie of the a$o'e mentioned %udgment. Co e'er!

learned counsel for the Election Commission of India made an assertion that the Election Commission too is of the opinion that incomplete nomination papers must $e re%ected.

7
Page 7

Cence!

the

Election

Commission

of

India

sought

for

clarification in that regard. Sta,- *0 t / U,"*, *0 I,-"a. The :nion of India also put forth the similar contention as raised $& the Election Commission. Interestingl&! the :nion of India also raised a 4uer& as to ho this Court ill $e

%ustified in accepting the nomination paper

ith false

information $ut re%ecting the nomination paper for filing affida'it ith particulars left $lan- and hence pra&ed that

$oth the a$o'esaid situations must $e treated at par. D"!&+!!"*,. 1#) Both the petitioner/organisation and the

respondent3:.I sought di'ergent remedies against the same situation 'i<.! herein the affida'it filed $& the candidate

stating the information gi'en as correct $ut the particulars of the same are left $lan-. The petitioner/organisation is

see-ing for re%ection of nomination paper in such a situation hereas the :nion of India is pleading for treating it at par ith filing false affida'it and to prosecute the candidate

8
Page 8

under *ection 1#)A of the Representation of the People Act! 1+)1 (in short Dthe RP ActA). 1") In order to appreciate the issue in'ol'ed! it is desira$le to refer the rele'ant pro'isions of the RP Act. *ections ""A! "6 and 1#)A of the RP Act read as under;
677A. R"( t t* ",0*)$at"*,.E(1) A candidate shall! apart from an& information hich he is re4uired to furnish! under this Act or the rules made thereunder! in his nomination paper deli'ered under su$/section (1) of section ""! also furnish the information as to hether F (i) he is accused of an& offence punisha$le ith imprisonment for t o &ears or more in a pending case in hich a charge has $een framed $& the court of competent %urisdictionG (ii) he has $een con'icted of an offence Hother than an& offence referred to in su$/section (1) or su$/ section (#)! or co'ered in su$/section (")! of section 5I and sentenced to imprisonment for one &ear or more. (#) The candidate or his proposer! as the case ma& $e! shall! at the time of deli'ering to the returning officer the nomination paper under su$/section (1) of section ""! also deli'er to him an affida'it s orn $& the candidate in a prescri$ed form 'er&f&ing the information specified in su$/section (1). (") The returning officer shall! as soon as ma& $e after the furnishing of information to him under su$/ section (1)! displa& the aforesaid information $& affi1ing a cop& of the affida'it! deli'ered under su$/ section (#)! at a conspicuous place at his office for the information of the electors relating to a constituenc& for hich the nomination paper is deli'ered. 78. S&)+t",1 *0 ,*$",at"*,.E(1) .n the date fi1ed for the scrutin& of nominations under section "(! the

9
Page 9

candidates! their election agents! one proposer of each candidate! and one other person dul& authori<ed in riting $& each candidate! $ut no other person! ma& attend at such time and place as the returning officer ma& appointG and the returning officer shall gi'e them all reasona$le facilities for e1amining the nomination papers of all candidates hich ha'e $een deli'ered ithin the time and in the manner laid do n in section "". (#) The returning officer shall then e1amine the nomination papers and shall decide all o$%ections hich ma& $e made to an& nomination and ma&! either on such o$%ection or on his o n motion! after such summar& in4uir&! if an&! as he thin-s necessar&! re%ect an& nomination on an& of the follo ing grounds;E (a) that on the date fi1ed for the scrutin& of nominations the candidate either is not 4ualified or is dis4ualified for $eing chosen to fill the seat under an& of the follo ing pro'isions that ma& $e applica$le! namel&; Articles 5,! 1(#! 19" and 1+1! Part II of this Act! and sections , and 1, of the =o'ernment of :nion Territories Act! 1+6" (#( of 1+6")G or ($) that there has $een a failure to compl& ith an& of the pro'isions of section "" or section ", G or (c) that the signature of the candidate or the proposer on the nomination paper is not genuine. (") 0othing contained in clause ($) or clause (c) of su$/section (#) shall $e deemed to authori<e the re%ection of the nomination of an& candidate on the ground of an& irregularit& in respect of a nomination paper! if the candidate has $een dul& nominated $& means of another nomination paper in respect of hich no irregularit& has $een committed. (,) The returning officer shall not re%ect an& nomination paper on the ground of an& defect hich is not of a su$stantial character. ()) The returning officer shall hold the scrutin& on the date appointed in this $ehalf under clause ($) of section "( and shall not allo an& ad%ournment of the proceedings e1cept hen such proceedings are 10
Page 10

interrupted or o$structed $& riot or open 'iolence or $& causes $e&ond his control; Pro'ided that in case an o$%ection is raised $& the returning officer or is made $& an& other person the candidate concerned ma& $e allo ed time to re$ut it not later than the ne1t da& $ut one follo ing the date fi1ed for scrutin&! and the returning officer shall record his decision on the date to hich the proceedings ha'e $een ad%ourned. (6) The returning officer shall endorse on each nomination paper his decision accepting or re%ecting the same and! if the nomination paper is re%ected! shall record in riting a $rief statement! of his reasons for such re%ection. (9) 8or the purposes of this section! a certified cop& of an entr& in the electoral roll for the time $eing in force of a constituenc& shall $e conclusi'e e'idence of the fact that the person referred to in that entr& is an elector for that constituenc&! unless it is pro'ed that he is su$%ect to a dis4ualification mentioned in section 16 of the Representation of the People Act! 1+)( (," of 1+)(). (5) Immediatel& after all the nomination papers ha'e $een scrutini<ed and decisions accepting or re%ecting the same ha'e $een recorded! the returning officer shall prepare a list of 'alidl& nominated candidates! that is to sa&! candidates hose nominations ha'e $een found 'alid! and affi1 it to his notice $oard. 129A. P/,a3t1 0*) 0"3",( 0a3!/ a00"-a#"t% /t& .EA candidate ho himself or through his proposer! ith intent to $e elected in an election!/ (i) fails to furnish information relating to su$/section (1) of section ""AG or (ii) gi'es false information hich he -no s or has reason to $elie'e to $e falseG or (iii) conceals an& information! in his nomination paper deli'ered under su$/section (1) of section "" or in his affida'it hich is re4uired to $e deli'ered under su$/section (#) of section ""A! as the case ma& $e! shall! not ithstanding an&thing contained in an& other la for the time $eing in force! $e 11
Page 11

punisha$le ith imprisonment for a term hich ma& e1tend to si1 months! or ith fine! or ith $oth.J

1,) In 'ie

of the a$o'e! the po er to re%ect the

nomination paper $& the Returning .fficer on the instance of candidate filing the affida'it ith particulars left $lan- can

$e deri'ed from the reasoning of a three/Kudge Bench of this Court in "hali#ram "hrivastava 's. $aresh "in#h Patel (#((") # *CC 196. In the aforesaid case! the nomination paper of a candidate got re%ected at the time of scrutin& under *ection "6(#) of the RP Act on the ground that he had not filled up the proforma prescri$ed $& the Election Commission herein the candidate as re4uired to state

hether he had $een con'icted or not for an& offence mentioned in *ection 5 of the RP Act. In actual! the candidate therein had filed an affida'it stating that the information gi'en in the proforma proforma itself coincidentall& as left $lan-. raised some hat as correct $ut the

The candidate therein similar contention as

pleaded $& the :nion of India in the present case. The candidate pleaded that his nomination paper could not $e re%ected on the ground that he had not filled up the proforma
12
Page 12

prescri$ed since no such proforma

as statutoril& pro'ided

under the pro'isions of the Act or under the rules framed thereunder. It as contended that the Commission could not

legislate to prescri$e a proformaG at $est it can onl& $e an e1ecuti'e instruction of the Election Commission hereas

the petitioner had filled the proforma prescri$ed under the Rules! hich did not suffer from an& defect.

1)) Although! the grounds of contention ma& not $e e1actl& similar to the case on hand $ut the reasoning rendered in that 'erdict ill come in aid for arri'ing at a decision in the

gi'en case. In order to arri'e at a conclusion in that case! this Court tra'ersed through the o$%ecti'e $ehind filing the proforma. The proforma mandated in that case as re4uired ith

to $e filed as to the necessar& and rele'ant information

regard to the candidate in the light of *ection 5 of the RP Act. This Court further held that at the time of scrutin&! the Returning .fficer is entitled to satisf& himself hether the

candidate is 4ualified and not dis4ualified! hence! the Returning .fficer as authori<ed to see- such information to as further
13
Page 13

$e furnished at the time or $efore scrutin&. It

held that if the candidate fails to furnish such information and also a$sents himself at the time of the scrutin& of the nomination papers! then he is o$'iousl& a'oiding a statutor& in4uir& $eing conducted $& the Returning .fficer under *ection "6(#) of the RP Act relating to his $eing not 4ualified or dis4ualified in the light of *ection 5 of the RP Act. It is $ound to result in defect of a su$stantial character in the nomination. This Court further held as under;/
?19. In the case in hand the candidate had failed to furnish such information as sought on the pro forma gi'en to him and had also failed to $e present personall& or through his representati'e at the time of scrutin&. The statutor& dut&3po er of Returning .fficer for holding proper scrutin& of nomination paper as rendered nugator&. 0o scrutin& of the nomination paper could $e made under *ection "6(#) of the Act in the light of *ection 5 of the Act. It certainl& rendered the nomination paper suffering from defect of su$stantial character and the Returning .fficer as ithin his rights in re%ecting the same.J

16) It is clear that the Returning .fficers deri'e the po er to re%ect the nomination papers on the ground that the contents to $e filled in the affida'its are essential to effectuate the intent of the pro'isions of the RP Act and as a conse4uence! lea'ing the affida'it $lanill in fact ma-e it hether the

impossi$le for the Returning .fficer to 'erif&

14
Page 14

candidate is 4ualified or dis4ualified

hich indeed

ill

frustrate the o$%ect $ehind filing the same. In concise! this Court in "hali#ram (s pra) e'aluated the purpose $ehind filing the proforma for ad'ancing latitude to the Returning .fficers to re%ect the nomination papers. 19) In the light of the a$o'e reasoning! no let us assess

the facts of the gi'en case. In Association for Democratic Reforms (s pra)! this Court arri'ed at a decision that the mem$ers of a democratic societ& should $e sufficientl& informed so that the& ma& influence intelligentl& the decisions hich ma& affect themsel'es and it ould include

their decision of casting 'otes in fa'our of a particular candidate. This Court further held that if there disclosure $& a candidate antecedents! assets and as a

ith regard to his criminal lia$ilities and educational

4ualification! then it

ould strengthen the 'oters in ta-ing

appropriate decision of casting their 'otes. This Court further stated as under;/
?"5. If right to telecast and right to 'ie to sport games and right to impart such information is considered to $e

15
Page 15

part and parcel of Article 1+(1)(a)! e fail to understand h& the right of a citi<en3'oter / a little man / to -no a$out the antecedents of his candidate cannot $e held to $e a fundamental right under Article 1+(1)(a). In our 'ie ! democrac& cannot sur'i'e ithout free and fair election! ithout free and fairl& informed 'oters. Votes cast $& uninformed 'oters in fa'our of L or M candidate ould $e meaningless. As stated in the aforesaid passage! one/sided information! disinformation! misinformation and non/information! all e4uall& create an uninformed citi<enr&! hich ma-es democrac& a farce. Therefore! casting of 'ote $& a misinformed and non/informed 'oter or a 'oter ha'ing one/sided information onl& is $ound to affect the democrac& seriousl&. 8reedom of speech and e1pression includes right to impart and recei'e information! hich includes freedom to hold opinions. Entertainment is implied in freedom of Nspeech and e1pressionN and there is no reason to hold that freedom of speech and e1pression ould not co'er right to get material information ith regard to a candidate ho is contesting election for a post hich is of utmost importance in the democrac&. ,6. O,. To maintain the purit& of elections and in particular to $ring transparenc& in the process of election! the Commission can as- the candidates a$out the e1penditure incurred $& the political parties and this transparenc& in the process of election ould include transparenc& of a candidate ho see-s election or re/election. In a democrac&! the electoral process has a strategic role. The little man of this countr& ould ha'e $asic elementar& right to -no full particulars of a candidate ho is to represent him in Parliament here la s to $ind his li$ert& and propert& ma& $e enacted. O9. :nder our Constitution! Article 19(1)(a) pro'ides for freedom of speech and e1pression. VotersNs speech or e1pression in case of election ould include casting of 'otes! that is to sa&! #*t/) !:/a'! *+t *) /;:)/!!/! <1 &a!t",( #*t/. 8or this purpose! information a$out the candidate to $e selected is a must. VoterNs (little man/citi<enNs) right to -no antecedents including criminal past of his candidate contesting election for 7P or 72A is much more fundamental and $asic for sur'i'al of democrac&. T / 3"tt3/ $a, $a1 t ",'

16
Page 16

*#/) </0*)/ $a'",( "! & *"&/ *0 /3/&t",( 3a=4 <)/a'/)! a! 3a=4$a'/)!.>

15) Thus! this Court held that a 'oter has the elementar& right to -no full particulars of a candidate ho is to

represent him in the Parliament and such right to get information is uni'ersall& recogni<ed natural right flo ing from the concept of democrac& and is an integral part of Article 1+(1)(a) of the Constitution. It as further held that ould

the 'oterNs speech or e1pression in case of election

include casting of 'otes! that is to sa&! 'oter spea-s out or e1presses $& casting 'ote. 8or this purpose! information a$out the candidate to $e selected is a must. Thus! in une4ui'ocal terms! it is recogni<ed that the citi<enAs right to -no of the candidate ho represents him in the Parliament

ill constitute an integral part of Article 1+(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and an& act! hich is derogati'e of the

fundamental rights is at the 'er& outset ultra vires. 1+) @ith this $ac-ground! *ection ""A of the RP Act enacted $& Act 9# of #((# as

ith effect from #,.(5.#((#. as to effectuate

Thus! the purpose of the Act 9# of #((#

17
Page 17

the right contemplated in Association for Democratic Reforms (s pra). Co e'er! the legislators did not

incorporate all the suggestions as directed $& this Court in the a$o'e case $ut for mandating all the candidates to disclose the criminal antecedents under *ection ""A $& filing an affida'it as prescri$ed along ith the nomination paper

filed under *ection ""(1) of the RP Act so that the citi<ens must $e a are of the criminal antecedents of the candidate $efore the& can e1ercise their freedom of choice $& casting of 'otes as guaranteed under the Constitution of India. As a result! at present! e'er& candidate is o$ligated to file an affida'it ith rele'ant information ith regard to their

criminal antecedents! assets and lia$ilities and educational 4ualifications. #() 2et us no test hether the filing of affida'it stating that

the information gi'en in the affida'it is correct $ut lea'ing the contents $lanould fulfill the o$%ecti'e $ehind filing the

same. The repl& to this 4uestion is a clear denial. The ultimate purpose of filing of affida'it along ith the

nomination paper is to effectuate the fundamental right of

18
Page 18

the citi<en under Article 1+(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The citi<ens are re4uired to ha'e the necessar& information at the time of filing of the nomination paper in order to ma-e a choice of their 'oting. @hen a candidate files an affida'it ith $lan- particulars! it renders the affida'it itself nugator&. #1) 8or that purpose! the Returning .fficer can 'er& ell

compel a candidate to furnish information rele'ant on the date of scrutin&. @e Commission alread& ere appraised that the Election has a standard draft format for

reminding the candidates to file an affida'it as stipulated. @e are of the opinion that along ith the a$o'e! another

clause ma& $e inserted for reminding the candidates to fill the $lan-s ith the rele'ant information there$& con'e&ing ith $lan- particulars ill $e

the message that no affida'it

entertained. @e reiterate that it is the dut& of the Returning .fficer to chechate'er the information re4uired is full& ith the nomination

furnished at the time of filing of affida'it

paper since such information is 'er& 'ital for gi'ing effect to the Dright to -no A of the citi<ens. If a candidate fails to fill the $lan-s e'en after the reminder $& the Returning .fficer!
19
Page 19

the

nomination

paper

is

fit

to

$e

re%ected.

@e

do

comprehend that the po er of Returning .fficer to re%ect the nomination paper must $e e1ercised 'er& sparingl& $ut the $ar should not $e laid so high that the %ustice itself is pre%udiced. ##) @e also clarif& to the e1tent that in our coherent opinion the a$o'e po er of re%ection $& the Returning .fficer is not $arred $& Para 9" of Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) (s pra) hich reads as under;/

?9". @hile no e1ception can $e ta-en to the insistence of affida'it ith regard to the matters specified in the %udgment in Assn for >emocratic Reforms case! the direction to re%ect the nomination paper for furnishing rong information or concealing material information and pro'iding for a summar& en4uir& at the time of scrutin& of the nominations! cannot $e %ustified. In the case of assets and lia$ilities! it ould $e 'er& difficult for the Returning .fficer to consider the truth or other ise of the details furnished ith reference to the Ndocumentar& proofN. Ver& often! in such matters the documentar& proof ma& not $e clinching and the candidate concerned ma& $e handicapped to re$ut the allegation then and there. If sufficient time is pro'ided! he ma& $e a$le to produce proof to contradict the o$%ectorNs 'ersion. It is true that the aforesaid directions issued $& the Election Commission are not under challenge $ut at the same time prima facie it appears that the Election Commission is re4uired to re'ise its instructions in the light of directions issued in Assn for >emocratic Reforms case and as pro'ided under the Representation of the People Act and its third Amendment.J

20
Page 20

#") The aforesaid paragraph! no dou$t! stresses on the importance of filing of affida'it! ho e'er! opines that the direction to re%ect the nomination paper for furnishing rong

information or concealing material information and pro'iding for a summar& in4uir& at the time of scrutin& of the nominations cannot $e %ustified since in such matters the documentar& proof ma& not $e clinching and the candidate concerned ma& $e handicapped to re$ut the allegation then and there. This Court as of the opinion that if sufficient

time is pro'ided! the candidate ma& $e in a position to produce proof to contradict the o$%ectorNs 'ersion . The o$%ect $ehind penning do n the aforesaid reasoning is to accommodate genuine situation here the candidate is

trapped $& false allegations and is una$le to re$ut the allegation ithin a short time. Para 9" of the aforesaid here it $ars

%udgment no here contemplates a situation

the Returning .fficer to re%ect the nomination paper on account of filing affida'it ith particulars left $lan-.

Therefore!

e here$& clarif& that the a$o'e said paragraph a& of the Returning .fficer to re%ect the

ill not come in the

21
Page 21

nomination paper if the said affida'it is filed

ith $lan-

columns. The candidate must ta-e the minimum effort to e1plicitl& remar- as D0I2A or D0ot Applica$leA or D0ot -no nA in the columns and not to lea'e the particulars $lan-! if he desires that his nomination paper $e accepted $& the Returning .fficer. #,) At this %uncture! it is 'ital to refer to *ection 1#)A of the RP Act. As an outcome! the act of failure on the part of the candidate to furnish rele'ant information! as mandated $& *ection ""A of the RP Act! ill result in prosecution of the ith $lan- space ill $e

candidate. Cence! filing of affida'it

directl& hit $& *ection 1#)A(i) of the RP Act. Co e'er! as the nomination paper itself is re%ected $& the Returning officer! e find no reason h& the candidate must again $e

penali<ed for the same act $& prosecuting him3her. #)) If e accept the contention raised $& :nion of India! ho has filed an affida'it ith false

'i<.! the candidate information as affida'it

ell as the candidate

ho has filed an

ith particulars left $lan- should $e treated at par!

22
Page 22

it

ill result in $reach of fundamental right guaranteed under

Article 1+(1)(a) of the Constitution! 'i<.! Dright to -no A! hich is inclusi'e of freedom of speech and e1pression as interpreted in Association (s pra). #6) In succinct! if the Election Commission accepts the nomination papers in spite of $lan- particulars in the affida'its! it ill directl& 'iolate the fundamental right of the the criminal antecedents! assets and for Democratic Reforms

citi<en to -no

lia$ilities and educational 4ualification of the candidate. Therefore! accepting affida'it candidate ith $lan- particulars from the

ill rescind the 'erdict in Association for

Democratic Reforms (s pra). 8urther! the su$se4uent act of prosecuting the candidate under *ection 1#)A(i) ill $ear

no significance as far as the $reach of fundamental right of the citi<en is concerned. 8or the aforesaid reasons! una$le to accept the contention of the :nion of India. #9) W at /$/)(/! 0)*$ t / a<*#/ -"!&+!!"*, &a, </ !+$$a)"5/- ", t / 0*)$ *0 0*33*=",( -")/&t"*,!. e are

23
Page 23

(i)

The 'oter has the elementar& right to -no

full

particulars of a candidate

ho is to represent him in the

Parliament3Assem$lies and such right to get information is uni'ersall& recogni<ed. Thus! it is held that right to -no a$out the candidate is a natural right flo ing from the concept of democrac& and is an integral part of Article 1+(1) (a) of the Constitution. (ii) The ultimate purpose of filing of affida'it along ith the

nomination paper is to effectuate the fundamental right of the citi<ens under Article 1+(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The citi<ens are supposed to ha'e the necessar& information at the time of filing of nomination paper and for that purpose! the Returning .fficer can 'er& candidate to furnish the rele'ant information. (iii) 8iling of affida'it affida'it nugator&. (i') It is the dut& of the Returning .fficer to chechether ith $lan- particulars ill render the ell compel a

the information re4uired is full& furnished at the time of filing of affida'it ith the nomination paper since such information
24
Page 24

is 'er& 'ital for gi'ing effect to the Dright to -no A of the citi<ens. If a candidate fails to fill the $lan-s e'en after the reminder $& the Returning .fficer! the nomination paper is fit to $e re%ected. @e do comprehend that the po er of Returning .fficer to re%ect the nomination paper must $e e1ercised 'er& sparingl& $ut the $ar should not $e laid so high that the %ustice itself is pre%udiced. (') @e clarif& to the e1tent that Para 9" of Peoples ill not come in

Union for Civil Liberties case (s pra) the paper

a& of the Returning .fficer to re%ect the nomination hen affida'it is filed ith $lan- particulars.

('i) The candidate must ta-e the minimum effort to e1plicitl& remar- as D0I2A or D0ot Applica$leA or D0ot -no nA in the columns and not to lea'e the particulars $lan-. ('ii) 8iling of affida'it ith $lan-s ill $e directl& hit $&

*ection 1#)A(i) of the RP Act Co e'er! as the nomination paper itself is re%ected $& the Returning .fficer! reason e find no

h& the candidate must $e again penali<ed for the

same act $& prosecuting him3her.

25
Page 25

#5)

The @rit Petition is disposed of

ith the a$o'e

directions.

OOO.OOOOOOOOOOCKI. (P. SATHASIVAM)

OOOO.OOOOOOOOOOK. (RANJANA PRA?ASH DESAI)

OOOO.OOOOOOOOOOK. (RANJAN GOGOI) 0E@ >E2CIG *EPTE7BER 1"! #(1".

26
Page 26