Summary
The Constitution Bench declined to create an additional electoral disqualification at the stage of criminal charges or to achieve that result by withholding a political party’s reserved symbol. Those changes required legislation by Parliament. To protect voters’ informed choice, however, it directed candidates to disclose pending criminal cases prominently, inform their parties, and publicise their antecedents; parties must publish that information on their websites and participate in newspaper and electronic-media publicity. The Court recommended legislative action against criminalisation of politics and disposed of the writ petitions and criminal appeals.
Issues
- Whether the Court could add electoral disqualifications beyond the Constitution and parliamentary legislation.
- Whether the Election Commission could be directed to withhold reserved party symbols from candidates facing serious criminal charges.
- What disclosure and publicity measures were required to secure voters’ informed choice.
Provisions considered
- Articles 102 and 191, Constitution of IndiaAdditional disqualifications for parliamentary and State legislative membership were for Parliament to enact; the Court could not supply a new ground by interpretation. (¶¶ 3–7, 13–16, 22–23)
- Sections 7(b), 8, 8A, 9, 9A, 10 and 10A, Representation of the People Act, 1951The specified statutory grounds and the words “on no other ground” left no ambiguity permitting judicial addition of disqualification on framing of charges. (¶¶ 14–16, 22–23)
- Article 324, Constitution of IndiaThe Commission’s broad responsibility for free and fair elections had to conform to valid election law and did not authorise legislation contrary to it. (¶ 61–70)
- Paragraphs 4, 5, 8, 13 and 18(c), Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968The scheme conferred a reserved-symbol entitlement on candidates set up by recognised parties. Withholding that symbol because of pending criminal charges would indirectly add a disqualification which the Court could not directly impose. (¶¶ 86–98, 104–107)
Held
- Parliament had exclusive legislative power to prescribe additional disqualifications under Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e). The statutory prescription was complete and unambiguous; the Court could not add a ground based on criminal charges, notwithstanding the serious concern about criminalisation of politics. (¶¶ 3–7, 13–16, 22–23)
- Article 324 was a reservoir of power where election law was silent, but the Election Commission had to act in conformity with valid legislation. Its constitutional status did not make it another legislative chamber. (¶ 61–70)
- Refusing a recognised party’s reserved symbol to a candidate facing charges would indirectly impose the disqualification which could not be created directly. The possibility of contesting independently did not remove that objection. The requested directions were therefore constitutionally impermissible. (¶¶ 86–98, 104–107, 118)
- The Court recommended that Parliament enact a strong law requiring parties to revoke membership of persons charged with heinous and grievous offences and refrain from fielding them. The Law Commission’s proposed disqualification rules and safeguards discussed in the judgment were recommendations which had not become law, rather than disqualifications introduced by this decision. (¶¶ 47–59, 108, 118–119)
- The voter’s right to an informed choice required meaningful disclosure of candidates’ antecedents. Every contesting candidate had to complete all required particulars in the Election Commission’s form and state pending criminal cases in bold letters. A party candidate also had to inform the party about those cases, and the party had to place the information on its website. (¶ 109–116(iv))
- Both candidate and party had to declare the candidate’s antecedents in widely circulated local newspapers and give wide publicity through electronic media, at least three times after nomination papers were filed. These measures were to be implemented earnestly to support informed voting. The writ petitions and criminal appeals were disposed of accordingly. (¶ 116(v)–120)
Result
No additional judicial disqualification or party-symbol restriction imposed. Candidate and party disclosure and publicity directions issued; legislative reform recommended. Writ petitions and criminal appeals disposed of.