CASE BRIEF

UNION OF INDIA V. ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS

Facts –
Filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.
Challenged the validity of Representation of People (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002
Section 33B of the Representation of People Act, 1955 which was added by Representation
of People (3rd Amendment) Act, 2002.
Section 33B –
Candidate to furnish information only under the Act and the rules • Notwithstanding anything
contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or any direction, order or any other
instruction issued by the Election Commission, no candidate shall be liable to disclose or furnish any
such information, in respect of his election, which is not required to be disclosed or furnished under
this Act or the rules made thereunder.
The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms
[(2002) 5 SCC 294] has explicitly ordered the Election Commission to call for information from the
candidates contesting elections to Parliament or State Legislature in respect of the following –
(1) Whether the candidate is convicted/acquitted/discharged of any criminal offences in the past• if
any, whether he is punished with imprisonment or fine?
(2) Prior to six months of filing of nomination, whether the candidate is accused in any pending case,
of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more, and in which charge is framed or
cognizance is taken by the Court of law. If so, the details thereof?
(3) The assets (immovable, movable, bank balance etc.) of a candidate and of his/her spouse and that
of dependants.
(4) Liabilities, if any, particularly whether there are any over dues of any public financial institution
or Government dues.
(5) The educational qualifications of the candidate. 1
However, the Legislature, through the Ordinance, has not asked for (a) the cases in which he is
acquitted or discharged of criminal offence(s); (b) his assets and liabilities; and (c) his educational
qualifications which are supposed to be provided by the candidate.
The abovementioned section was challenged because it has violated the direction provided by the SC
in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms [(2002) 5 SCC 294].
Issues –
Whether Section 33B is valid or not?
Arguments –
It has been contended that Section 33B violates the fundamental right of the voters, guaranteed under
Article 19(1)(a), and the very basic feature of the Constitution i.e. republic democracy which is a part
and parcel for ensuring free and fair elections in India.

1
Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms [(2002) 5 SCC 294].
It has also been contended that the Legislature has made the decision, rendered by this Court, null and
void by passing the Ordinance which the Legislature has no right of doing.
Contending the arguments presented by the petitioners, the (opposite of petitioner) argued that right to
know the antecedents of the candidate contesting elections is not a fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(a) but only a derivative derived by interpreting the same. Furthermore, it has been
argued that the Ordinance does not violate the directions rendered by this Court in the judgement of
Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms [(2002) 5 SCC 294].
Judgement -
Firstly, the Court while pronouncing its decision, held that the Legislature has no power to ask the
instrumentalities of the State to disregard or disobey the decisions pronounced by the Courts. The
Court referred to the case of n The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and another v.
The New Shrock Spg. And Wvg. Co. Ltd. [(1970) 2 SCC 280] and Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri
Raj Narain [1975 Supp. SCC 1] in which the Courts have explicitly stated that the Legislature has no
power to encroach upon the judicial sphere.
While deciding the judgement of the case, Shah J. emphasized on the idea that the Constitution
envisage republic democracy and the survival of democracy depends upon free and fair election that
can only happen if the voters are aware of antecedents of candidates contesting elections. He
emphasized on constitutional supremacy while deciding any judgement. A voter must have all the
required antecedents of the candidate contesting elections as a part of Article 19(1)(a) so that he/she
can make an informed decision while casting his/her vote.