CASE ANALYSIS – PEOPLE’s UNION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES V/s UNION OF INDIA & Anr.

INTRODUCTION:-

In this case it is rightly said that “where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct.” The people of this country have right to know every public act. This case had fundamentally and constitutionally challenge and nullify the effect of Supreme Court judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Association for democratic reforms (2002) after that it was inserted- Section 33(B) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

FACTS OF THE CASE :-

1. This present case involves the petitioner named People’s Union of Civil Liberties (P.U.C.L) and the defendant was Union of India, with respect of Representation of People Act 1951.
2. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the constitution challenging the certain provisions of the act.
3. The writ petition was focused on the lack of provisions requiring candidates to disclose their criminal records, assets and educational qualifications when contesting election.
4. This case contain right of a voter to know certain academic and financial detail of the candidate who is going to contest for election.

ISSUE OF THE CASE:-

1. Whether the right to know the background of the candidates comes under the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)?

2. Whether the judiciary’s directives can be overruled by legislative amendments which limits the information available for voters?

3. Whether is it necessary to disclose certain information like educational qualifications,assets and criminal antecedents for ensuring transparency and integrity in elections?

4. Wheteher Section 33 (A) by itself effectively secure voters right to information & enactment of section 33 (B) of the Representation of people act, 1951, violets Article 19(1)(a) or it is unconstitutional?

JUDGMENT:-

The Supreme Court after examination of relevant precedents and interpretation of the suit, laid down following judgment-

1. That Right to Information of Voters to know the criminal antecedents, assets and qualification of a candidate comes under the part of the fundamental right under 19(1)(a). 

As People’s right to know about government affairs was emphasized by the court in the following words:-

“No democratic government can survive without accountability and the basic postulate of accountability is that the people should have information about the functioning of the government. It is only when people know how government is functioning that they can fulfill the role which democracy a really effective participatory democracy” 

2. That the court upheld that right to vote is a constitutional right and not a fundamental right but right to make choice by means of ballot is part of freedom of expression.
3. That in the above mentioned suit the court nullify contents of section 33(B) substantially the directives of the election commission to the judgment of this case. At present only the instruction issued by the election commission could only operates the provisions of 33(A) of the Representation of peoples act , 1951.
4. That the court stated that “Impugned legislation fails to effectuate right to information on certain vital aspects.” There is a second reason why Section 33(B) should be condemned is that it block the content of Section 33(A) which allow to disclosure only what has been specifically provided by the amendment. The legislation failed to give effect to one of the vital aspects of information.
5. That the court in the present suit also clarifies that “ How far the principle that the Legislature cannot encroach upon the judicial sphere”, which further provided that it is the principal of constitutional jurisprudence that the legislature cannot overrule any judgment of the Court without lawfully removing the defect taken out by the court.
6. An Obiter dictum:- Exclusion of offences referred to in sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 8 of the R.P. Act which deals with disqualification on conviction of certain offences. These offences are of serious nature from the point of view of national and societal interest.
7. The Court also added that disclosure of all the assets is another major difficulty among the several points. but when it comes at the point where the competition between the right to privacy and the right to information of the citizens, the former right has to serve to the latter right as it becomes a public interest.

REASONING:-

1. In this following case, the court analysed with several precedents deciding on the question raised in the issue of this article.
2. First, the court refer the case State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Raj Narain “the right to know” which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, when any secrecy claimed for transaction of privacy, it should not compromise with public security. The said court stated that “In the Government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public way, by their public functionaries”.
3. Secondly, in the case of S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India {(1981)Suppl. SCC page 87}dealt with the constitutional validity of Article 19(1)(a) which explain the concept of an open government directly lie to the right to know which is defined with right to free speech and expression.
4. In the case of Lily Thomas V.s Speaker of Lok Sabha [(1993)4 SCC 234] which is quoting from the Black’s Dictionary that the citizen or the voter of the country must be able to take part in the government by their representative and the same representative act like the law maker and the custodian of the public rights and interest . As such many voters will lose their rights and interest and be specifically constitutionally handicapped in making decision if the government does not help in making choice by giving at least basic information of the candidate. 
5. That the Section 33B held unconstitutional by referring the principle stated in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. State of Kerala,(2014) 12 SCC 696 which state that legislature cannot nullify a court’s ruling without removing the basis of the ruling.

CONCLUSION:-

The right to know is a fundamental right which stated with right to free speech and expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution . In the above mentioned case the right to vote at the election in legislative assembly or in the house of people is a constitutional right. Casting a vote marked as the freedom of expression of the Voter. The court adopted the golden rule of theory in context of adapting a balanced approach by providing the right to information and laying down the several parameters of that right. In the failure of providing full disclosure of the educational qualification, assets and liabilities and Criminal antecedents counted as infringement of freedom of expression. This judgment strengthened the electoral process by ensuring the rights of voters and not making them a passive voters but an informed decision makers.

 REFERENCES

1. People’S Union Of Civil Liberties … vs Union Of India & Anr on 13 March, 2003
2. Manupatra.

Written by Kumar Aman an intern under legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.