LOK PRAHARI, THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY S. N. SHUKLA versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 784 OF 2015 FEBRUARY 16, 2018

Citation: [2018] 2 S.C.R. 892 · Decided: 16-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
892
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  2 S.C.R.
LOK PRAHARI, THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY S. N.
SHUKLA
v.
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
WRIT PETITION (C) No. 784 OF 2015
FEBRUARY 16, 2018
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
The Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Chapter II, Part
III – ss.2(g), 7(b), 8, 8A, 9, 9A, 10, 10A, 33A, 33B, 77, 78, 100, 123
and 169 – Disqualification of Legislators on ground of undue
accretion of assets – Right of voters to know vital information about
candidates – Writ petition filed by registered society stating that the
assets of some members of the Parliament and State legislatures
grew disproportionately to their known sources of income – Petitioner
sought various reliefs – Held: Parliament has prescribed various
disqualifications in Chapter III of Part II of the 1951 Act – However,
undue accumulation of wealth (assets of the Legislators) is not one
of the grounds specified either under the 1951 Act or u/Arts.102
and 191 of the Constitution which stipulate some of the
disqualifications – Financial background, in all its aspects, of the
candidates is relevant and critical information – Voters have a
fundamental right to know the relevant information about the
Candidates – Prayer No.1(1) of the petitioner allowed – Thus, r.4A
of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and Form 26 appended to
the said Rules to be suitably amended, requiring Candidates and
their spouses and dependants to declare their sources of income –
Further, prayer no. 1(3)(ii) seeking direction for establishment of a
permanent mechanism to inquire/ investigate into the
disproportionate increase in the assets of Legislators during their
tenure as Legislators, prayer no. 2 seeking declaration that non-
disclosure of assets and sources of income would amount to ‘undue
influence’- a corrupt practice u/s.123(2) of the 1951 Act, prayer
no. 4 seeking information regarding the contracts, if any with the
appropriate government either by the candidate or his/her spouse
and dependants and prayer no.5 seeking Form 26 to be amended
to provide certain further information, also allowed – However,
prayer nos. 1(2) and 3 insofar as they seek directions in the nature
[2018] 2  S.C.R. 892
892
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
893
of mandamus to consider amendment of the RP Act of 1951 and
prayer no. 1(3)(i) seeking selective inquiry/investigation into the
“disproportionate increase in the assets” of the named Legislators,
not allowed – Constitution of India – Arts.19(1)(a), 32, 58, 66, 84,
102(1)(e), 191(1)(e) 173, 326, 329 – VIIth  Schedule, List I, Entry
72  – Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 – r 4A, Form 26 – Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.13(1)(e), 13(2) – Election Laws –
Electoral Reforms.
The Representation of the People Act, 1951 – s. 169 – Rule
making power under, of Central Government – Discussed –
Administrative Law – Subordinate Legislation.
Writs – When cannot be issued – Writ petition filed inter alia
seeking direction to respondents for amendment of provisions of
the 1951 Act – Held: No writ could be issued to compel any legislative
body to make a law – Hence, prayers seeking directions to
respondents for amendment of the provisions of the 1951 Act cannot
be granted – The Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Allowing the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Representation of the People Act, 1951
contains various provisions in Chapter III of Part II stipulating
the disqualifications for membership of Parliament and State
Legislatures. They are Sections 8, 8A, 9, 9A, 10 and 10A. Chapter
IV of Part II contains a provision stipulating a disqualification for
voting, obviously, referable to the authority of Parliament under
Article 326. The expression ‘disqualified’ is defined under
Section 7(b) of the RP Act of 1951. [Paras 11, 12] [908-F-G]
1.2  Section 33A mandates that a candidate is also required
to deliver to the returning officer at the time of the filing of
nomination an affidavit sworn by the candidate in the prescribed
form.  As a corollary to the said mandate, Rule 4A was inserted in
the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereafter referred to as
the RULES) stipulating that an affidavit in the Form No.26 is
required to be filed.  The form, as originally prescribed under
Rule 4A w.e.f. 3.9.2002, stood substituted w.e.f. 1.8.2012. The
form, inter alia, requires information regarding the Permanent
Account Numbers (PAN) given by the Income Tax authorities to
the CANDIDATE. It also requires details of the assets (bot

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.