LexRESURGENCE INDIA versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2013] 9 S.C.R. 360 RESURGENCE INDIA v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 121 of 2008) SEPTEMBER 13, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJANA PRAKASH DJ:SAI AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950:. Art. 19(1)(a) - Freedom of speech and expression - Right to know...: Voter's right to know about the candidate contesting the election - /Explained - Held: Citizen's right to know of the candidate who represents him in Parliament/State Assembly 0 will constitute an integral part of Art.19(1)(a); and any act, which is derogative of the fundamental rights is ultra vires - Purpose of filing of affidavit along with the nomination paper is to effectuate the fundamental right of the citizen under Art.19(1)(a) - The citizens are entitled to have the necessary E information at the time of filing of the nomination paper in order to make a choice of their voting. Representation of the People Act, 1951: s.33-A read with ss. 36 and 125-A - Right to information F - Candidates contesting the election - Filing of nomination paper - Affidavit with particulars left blank - Furnishing of information as required under sub-s.(1) of s.33-A and as laid down in the judgments of Supreme Court in Association for Democratic Reforms and People's Union for Civil Liberties - G Principles culled out and directions issued - Held: Every candidate is obligated to file an affidavit with relevant information with regard to his/her criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities and educational qualifications - Filing of affidavit with particulars left blank will render the affidavit H 360 RESURGENCE INDIA v. ELECTION COMMISSION 361 OF INDIA nugatory - If a candidate fails to fill the blanks even after A reminder by Returning Officer, the nomination paper is fit to be rejected -Power of Returning Officer to reject nomination paper must be exercised very sparingly but the bar should not be laid so high that justice itself is prejudiced - It is clarified that Para 73 of the judgment in People's Union for B Civil Liberties will not come in the way of Returning Officer to reject the nomination paper when affidavit is filed with particulars left blank. s.36 read with s.33-A - Scrutiny of nomination - Duty of C Returning Officer - Explained - Furnishing of relevant information - Held: Returning Officer can compel a candidate to furnish information relevant on the date of scrutiny - Election Commission already has a standard draft format for reminding the candidates to file an affidavit as stipulated - Another clause may be inserted in the format for reminding D the candidates to fill the blanks with relevant information thereby conveying the message that no affidavit with particulars left blank will be entertained. s.125 A(i) - Filing of false affidavit and filing of affidavit E with particulars left blank - Held: Filing of affidavit with particulars left blank will be directly hit by s.125A(i) - However, as the nomination paper itself is rejected by Returning Officer, there is no reason to penalize the candidate again for the same act by prosecuting him/her - If the F candidate who has filed an affidavit with false information as well as the candidate who has filed an affidavit with particulars left blank are treated at par, it will result in breach of fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 19(1 )(a) of the Constitution, viz., 'right to know', which is inclusive of freedom G of speech and expression. During the Punjab Legislative Assembly Elections, 2007, the petitioner-organization noticed large scale irregularities in most of the affidavits filed by the candidates of different political parties as regards H 362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R. A furnishing of information relating to candidate's conviction/acquittal/discharge in any criminal offence in the past, any criminal case pending against him, information regarding assets of the candidate as well as of his/her spouse and dependants etc. as was required B consequent upon judgments of the Supreme Court in Association for Democratic Reforms1 and People's Union for Civil Liberties2 (PUCL). The petitioner, therefore, made a representation to the Election Commission of India regarding large number of non-disclosures in the c affidavits filed by the contestants in the State and poor level of scrutiny by the Return.ing Officers. The Election Commission of India expressed its inabi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.