KRISHNAMOORTHY versus SIVAKUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 4 S.C.R. 987 · Decided: 05-02-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 13 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2015] 4 S.C.R. 987 
KRISHNAMOORTHY 
V. 
SIVAKUMAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.14 78 of 2015) 
FEBRUARY 05, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 - s.260 - 'Undue 
influence' -
Whether failure to disclose criminal cases C 
pending against a candidate would come within the concept 
of 'undue influence' and thereby corrupt practice - Plea of 
candidate that he having disclosed the main crime number, 
his failure to mention other ancillary and connected cases, · 0 
would not amount to undue influence - Held: A voter has 
a fundamental right to know the antecedents of the 
candidate contesting election as it is an essential 
concomitant for a free and fair election - Disclosure of 
crin:inal antecedents, especially pertaining to heinous E 
crimes or crimes relating to corruption or moral turpitude 
at the time of filing nomination paper is imperative -
Concealment or suppression thereof since deprives the 
voters to make an informed or advised choice and hence 
would amount to interference or attempt to interference with 
F 
free exercise of right to vote - As the candidate has special 
knowledge of the pending cases against him, non-
disclosure thereof would amount to undue influence which 
is a facet of corrupt practice - Thus, the High Court was 
justified in declaring the election null and void on the ground G 
of corrupt practice - Representation of People Act .. 1951 -
ss.33A, 100(1)(b), 123(2) and 171-C - Conduct of Election 
Rules 1861 - rr.4A, 41(2), 41(3) and 49-0. 
987 
H 
988 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Election Laws: 
'Disqualification' and 'Corrupt practice' - Distinction 
between - Discussed. 
8 
'Undue influence' and 'proper influence' - Distinction 
between. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. A voter has a fundamental right to know 
C about the candidates contesting the elections as that 
is essential and a necessary concomitant for a free and 
fair election. It is the first step. The voter is entitled to 
make a choice after coming to know the antecedents 
of a candidate a requisite for making informed choice. 
D The voter's fundamental right to know the antecedents 
of a candidate is independent of statutory requirement 
under the election law, for a voter is first a citizen of 
this country and apart from statutory rights, he has the 
fundamental right to know and be informed. Such a 
E right to know is conferred by the Constitution. [para 
27) [1022-D-F] 
Union of India Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms, 
2002(3) SCR 696 = 2002 (5) SCC 294; People's Union for 
F Civil Liberties (PUCL) & Another V. Union of India CJnd 
Another 2003 (2) SCR 1136 = 2003 (4) SCC 399; 
Resurgence India V. Election Commission of India & Anr. 
2013 (9) SCR 360 = 2014 (14) SCC 189; Shaligram 
Shrivastava V. Naresh Singh Patel 2002 (5) Suppl. SCR 
G 585 = 2003 (2) SCC 176; People's Union for Civil Liberties 
and Another V. Union of India and Another 2013 (12) SCR 
283 = 2013 (10) sec 1 - relied on. 
Vineet Narain V. Union of India 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 
H 595 = 1998 (1) SCC 226, Kihoto Hollohan V. Zachil/hu 1992 
KRISHNAMOORTHY v. SIVAKUMAR & ORS. 
989 
(1) SCR 686 = 1992 (2) Suppl. SCC 651; Mohinder Singh A 
Gill II. Chief Election Commissioner 1978 (2) SCR 272 = 
1978 (1) SCC 405, Kanhiya Lal Omar II. R.K. Trivedi 1985 
(3) Suppl. SCR 1 = 1985 (4) SCC 628, Common Cause 
II. Union of India 1996 (3) SCR 1208 = 1996 (2) SCC 752; 
Narasimha Rao II. State (CB//SPE) 1998 (2) SCR 870 = B 
1998 (4) SCC 626; Lily Thomas II. Speaker of Lok Sabha 
1993 (1) Suppl. SCR 791 = 1993 (4) SCC 234 - referred 
to. 
2. In_ a constitutional democracy, any kind of C 
criminalisation of politics is an extremely lamentable 
situation. It is an anathema to the sanctity of 
democracy. The criminalisation creates a concavity in 
the heart of democracy and has the potentiality to 
paralyse, comatose and strangulate the purity of the D 
system. [para 31] [1025-B-C] 
Manoj Narula V. Union of India 2014 (9) SCC 1; 
Subramanian Swamy II. CBI 2014 (8) SCC 682 - followed 
E 
S. Raghbir Singh Gill II. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra 
1980 SCR 1302 = 1980 Suppl. SCC 53, S.S. Bola II. B.D. 
Sardana 1997 (2) Suppl. SCR 507 = 1997 (8) SCC 522, 
State of U.P. II. Jai Bir Singh 2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 20 = 
2005 (5) SCC 1, Reliance Natural Resources Ltd., V. 
F 
Reliance Industries Ltd. 2010 (5) SCR 704 = 2010 (7) SCC 
1, Ram Jethmalani II. Union of India 2011 (8 ) SCR 725 
= 2011 (8) SCC 1 and State of M
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.