Summary
In contempt proceedings concerning disclosure of candidates’ criminal antecedents, the Supreme Court required political parties to publish detailed pending-case information and reasons for selecting such candidates over persons without criminal antecedents. Reasons must concern qualifications, achievements and merit rather than mere electoral winnability. The Court prescribed publication deadlines, reporting to the Election Commission and referral of noncompliance to the Court.
Issues
- What additional disclosure and compliance measures were required concerning political parties’ selection of candidates with pending criminal cases.
Held
- Political parties at Central and State election levels must publish on their websites detailed pending-case information about selected candidates, including offence particulars, framing of charges, court and case number, together with reasons for selection and for not choosing persons without criminal antecedents. Selection reasons must address qualifications, achievements and merit rather than mere winnability. (¶ 4)
- The information must also appear in one local vernacular newspaper, one national newspaper and the party’s official social-media platforms. Publication must occur within forty-eight hours of selection or not less than two weeks before the first nomination-filing date, whichever is earlier. (¶ 4)
- The party must submit a compliance report to the Election Commission within seventy-two hours of selection. Failure to submit the report must be brought by the Commission to the Supreme Court’s notice as contempt of its directions. (¶ 4)
Result
Contempt petitions disposed of with the specified disclosure, publication and compliance directions, issued under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution. No individual finding of contempt or punishment recorded.