Union of India v Association for Democratic Reforms

Facts

• No provision of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 or the rules required a candidate to disclose his criminal antecedents, his assets and liabilities, or his educational qualifications.
• A voter therefore had no reliable means of learning whether a candidate was facing serious criminal charges or what his financial position was.
• Petitioners drew attention to the growing number of persons with criminal records contesting and winning elections, and to the absence of any mechanism of disclosure.
• They sought directions to the Election Commission requiring candidates to furnish such information at the time of filing nomination papers.
• The Union contended that the matter was one for Parliament, that in the absence of legislation no such obligation could be imposed, and that requiring disclosure of pending cases would prejudice a candidate presumed innocent.

Issue

1. Whether a voter has a constitutional right to know the antecedents of a candidate; and whether the Election Commission may require disclosure in the absence of any legislation.

Held

• Directions were issued. The Court held that the right to know the antecedents of a candidate flows from Art.19(1)(a): freedom of speech and expression includes the right to receive and impart information, and the casting of a vote is itself an expression of opinion which cannot be meaningfully exercised in ignorance of the material facts about the candidates. A voter deprived of such information is not making a free choice, so the guarantee of a free and fair election is itself engaged. As to power, the Court applied Mohinder Singh Gill v Chief Election Commissioner (1978): Art.324 is a reservoir of power which operates where the enacted law is silent, and the absence of legislation is therefore not an obstacle but the very occasion for the Commission to act. The Commission was accordingly directed to call upon every candidate to furnish, by affidavit filed with the nomination paper, information as to pending criminal cases and convictions, assets and liabilities of himself and his dependants, and his educational qualifications.

Ratio Decidendi

A democratic election presupposes an informed electorate, so the right to vote and the right to information about the choice are inseparable in practice. Since Art.19(1)(a) protects the receipt as well as the expression of information, the voter's interest is a constitutional interest and not merely a desirable one. As to the means, a power conferred to secure free and fair elections must extend to what is necessary for that purpose, and a requirement of disclosure is a means and not an addition to the qualifications for candidature, so it does not trespass on the legislative field of prescribing disqualifications.