Summary
In proceedings concerning Bihar’s 2020 Assembly elections, the Court held nine political parties in contempt for failure to comply with candidate-criminal-antecedent disclosure directions. It ordered monetary deposits from eight parties, cautioned BSP and found ECI not in contempt. The Court preserved parties’ freedom to select legally eligible candidates but required meaningful reasons beyond mere winnability. It declined directions indirectly adding disqualifications, revised publication to within 48 hours of candidate selection, and ordered prominent website disclosure, an ECI mobile application, voter awareness and compliance monitoring.
Issues
- Whether political parties complied in substance with the criminal-antecedent disclosure directions.
- Whether the Court could direct withdrawal of party recognition or otherwise introduce additional electoral disqualifications.
- What publication timetable and implementation directions were appropriate.
Provisions considered
- Articles 19(1)(a), 129 and 142, Constitution of IndiaThe voter’s right to informed choice supported enforcement of disclosure directions, contempt findings and additional implementation measures. (¶¶ 6, 12, 14, 25, 26, 28, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73)
- Articles 102(1)(e), 191(1)(e) and 324(1), Constitution of IndiaThe Court followed the Constitution Bench’s separation-of-powers limits: electoral supervision could not override legislation or create indirect disqualifications. (¶¶ 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 47, 48, 50, 53, 57, 72)
- Section 30, Representation of the People Act, 1951The nomination and withdrawal timetable made the earlier two-week-before-nominations requirement impracticable; publication within 48 hours of selection was retained. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 73(v))
Held
- Disclosure of criminal cases and meaningful reasons for selecting a candidate enables an informed vote. Parties retain discretion to select otherwise eligible candidates, including those they consider falsely implicated, but mere winnability is insufficient. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 28)
- The Court could not compel earlier candidate finalisation without statutory provision or accept directions to suspend or withdraw recognition that indirectly introduced disqualifications. The Constitution Bench’s limits and separation of powers governed. (¶¶ 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 72)
- JD(U), RJD, LJP, INC, BJP, CPI(M), NCP, CPI and RLSP were held in contempt for their respective failures. Mechanical or stereotyped reasons and organisational oversight did not excuse non-compliance. The Court took a lenient view because these were the first elections following its directions and warned against future breaches. (¶¶ 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69)
- JD(U), RJD, LJP, INC, BJP and CPI were each directed to deposit ₹1 lakh, and CPI(M) and NCP ₹5 lakh each, into the ECI awareness fund within eight weeks. Paragraph 69 imposed no monetary deposit on RLSP despite its contempt finding. (¶¶ 68, 69, 73(iii))
- BSP’s explanations about the two identified candidates were accepted, with a caution to comply in substance. ECI was not held in contempt, but was required to report breaches as promptly as possible and take prompt action itself. (¶¶ 66, 70)
- Candidate criminal-antecedent information had to appear on party website homepages under a specific caption. ECI had to create a dedicated mobile application, conduct an extensive voter-awareness campaign, create a fund within four weeks, and establish a separate compliance-monitoring cell. (¶¶ 73(i), 73(ii), 73(iii), 73(iv))
- The earlier publication direction was modified to require publication within 48 hours of selection, removing the two-week-before-nominations limb. ECI had to report failures to submit compliance reports to the Court for contempt action. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 73(v), 73(vi))
Result
Contempt petition and miscellaneous application disposed of with nine parties held in contempt, specified deposits by eight parties, warnings, and further disclosure, awareness and monitoring directions; ECI not held in contempt.