PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES (PUCL) AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 1136 · Decided: 13-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 15 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES (PUCL) AND ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
MARCH 13, 2003 
B 
[M.B. SHAH, P. VENKATARAMA REDD! AND D.M. 
DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Election Laws: 
C 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: 
Section 33B-Prohibition regarding disclosure or furnishing of 
information in respect of candidate's election, which is not required to be 
disclosed or furnished under the Act or the rules made, despite directions 
D issued by Supreme Court-Constitutional validity of-Held: right of voter to 
know antecedents of contesting candidate is a fundamental right under Article 
19(J)(a)-Such right could be abridged by passing legislation under Article 
19(2)-lmpugned provision not justified or saved under Article 19(2)-Hence 
illegal, null and void-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 245 and 19(J)(a). 
E 
Issuance of directions to Election Commissiun with regard to furnishing 
of info!"mation by contesting candidates in Association for democratic 
reform's case by Supreme Court-Election Commission directing wrongful 
information would lead to rejection of nomination paper-Justification of-
Held: Such direction not justified- Commission directed to revise instructions. 
F 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
G 
H 
Article 245-Legislature-Powers-Scope of-Held: Legislature can 
remove the defect which is the cause for invalidating law by the Court by 
appropriate legislation subject to legislative competence-However, it cannot 
ask instrumentalities of State to disobey decisions given by Court. 
Article 19(/)(a): 
Freedom of speech and expression-Right to know antecedents of 
candidates-Held: ls facet of Article /9(J)(a)-Such information to voter is 
necessary for free and fair election in turn for survival of democracy-Further 
1136 
~\ 
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIFS (PUCL) v. U.0.1. 
113 7 
such right is independent of statutory right under election law-Merely because A 
right to vote and contest for election is a statutory right, such fundamental 
right cannot be abridged by statutory provisions. 
Right of voter to know antecedents of candidates-Nature of-Held: Is 
not a derivative fundamental right, as there is no such concept but a 
fundamental right-Hence legislature cannot nullifY it. 
B 
Article 21--Right of privacy-Infringement of-Declaration about 
criminal antecedents of candidates an{i his assets and liabilities-Held: Such 
declaration does not infringe his right to privacy. 
Articles 145(3) and 19(/)(a)-Matter involving substantial question of C 
law as to interpretation of constitutional provisions- Reference to five Judge 
Bench-When called for-Discussed-Held: On facts, in earlier decision 
Supreme Court holding right of voter to know. antecedents of candidate as his 
fundamental right under Article 19(/)(a)-Decision attaining finality-Thus, 
no question requiring interpretation of constitutional provisions-Hence no D 
need to refer the matter to five Judge Bench in subsequent case-Also in 
earlier case no plea raised that question be referred to f!Ve Judge Bench. 
Article 32-Challenge of vires of the Act-Notice to Attorney Genera/-
Compliance of-Held: When Union of India is party-respondent and Solicitor 
General is appearing before the Court, notice to Attorney General is not E 
required-Practice and procedure. 
In Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms* case this 
Court held that a citizen/voter has the right to know about the antecedents 
of the contesting candiclate and this right is a part of the fundamental right 
under Article 19(l)(a). With regard to the enforcement of the right the F 
Court noticed that there was void in the field, as it was not covered by 
any legislative provision. Thereafter it directed the Election Commission 
to fill the vacuum by requiring the candidate to furnish information 
regarding past convictions/acquittals/discharges; and whether prior to six 
months of filing of nomination, the candidate has been accused of any G 
criminal offence punishable with two years imprisonment or more, and 
charge framed or cognizance taken; his assets and liabilities and also assets 
of his spouse and dependents; and the educational qualifications. Election 
Commission issued directions for the implementation of the decision. 
Subsequently, Sections 33A and 338 were inserted in the Representation 
of the People Act 1951 by the 3rd Amendment Act, 2002. Under section H 
1138 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A 33A candidate was required to disclose any c

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