Lok Prahari v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2005

INTRODUCTION:

In our society, democracy plays a vital role in our constitution. A fair and clean electoral process is an essential element for any democracy. For every person have right to vote or right to contest elections and other matters which is necessary and it’s their right to know. In our constitution framers and members of constitution must be elected in electoral process in fair way.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner is registered society under societies registration Act. The member of the society is retired civil servants, and in past some had constitutional offices. Our constitution framers have basic norms regarding electoral process, it established right to voting or the right to contest elections to various bodies and for president, vice president, members of parliament and member of state legislature Under Article 324 of Indian constitution.

An election Commission was established for overall superintendence and to control elections. And our constitution has imposed limitations to such rights and it differs from each body. Every citizen has right and duty to vote or contest an election of above mentioned bodies. Article 326 deals with criteria for election to the House’of people and legislative assemblies of state. Article 84(b) held that any person less than 25 year of age can’t eligible to be the Member of Parliament of Loksabha and Any person who is less than 30 year of age not eligible to be Member of Rajya sabha. Article 183(b) deals with Qualification of member of state legislature and Article 58 and 66 deals with Qualification for election of President and Vice President.

The constitution also have certain disqualification for contesting any elections under Article 102 and Article 191, not only for being choosed and also to continue as member of either House of parliament and as member of state legislature.Entry 72 of list I of 7th schedule of Constitution of India and Entry 47 of List II which gives parliament and State Legislature to make laws relating to provision of Article 327 of Constitution.

Parliament made various enactments for regulating electoral process, at present The Representation of the people Act 1951 and 1950 enacted. The Representation of the People Act, 1951 has several provisions in Chapter III of part II deals with disqualification of Member of Parliament and state Legislature. Section 7(b) of Representation of the People Act 1951, define the expression “disqualified’. Section 8 deals with Disqualification if any consequences of conviction and imposition of sentences to Imprisonment of person for offences occured. Section 8A deals with Any person is guilty of a corrupt  practiced by election petition to High court, disqualified not less than 6 years , which determined by President of India.

The Electoral Process is foundation of all democratic form of Government. Article 329(b) of constitution, No interference by court in electoral matters. To command of 329(b), Part V of Representatives of the people Act of 1951 deals with disputes regarding elections. Section 100 has Grounds for declaring election to be void. Various bodies, Law Commission of India or A committee known as Vohra Committee constituted by the Government of India are working for democracy of India.

Union of India v Association for Democratic Reforms and Another (2002) 5 SCC 294, Referred as “ADR Case” held Voter speaks out or express by casting vote; is fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). The candidate of Election must furnish (a) Candidate criminal antecedents (b) assests and liabilities (c) educational qualification. The court recorded parliament Committee headed by Shri Indrajit Gupta submitted a report in 1998 on question of state regarding funding of election. Article 324 of Constitution of India required candidates to furnish the necessary Information. Parliament chooses to amend Representation of the people Act of 1951 by introducing section 33A and made further declaration under section 33. Parliament declared, other information required to furnish by candidate by the virtue of directions issued in ADR case need not be given

The constitutionality of said provision fell before the court in People union Civil Liberties & another v Union of India & Another (2003) 4 sec 399; referred as “PUCL case” held that section 33A fails to ensure complete compliance. Rule 4A inserted in The Conduct of Election Rules; 1961 in form No 26, which need to filed with Nomination form. The form requires Information of Permanent Account number given by the Income Tax officer to candidate and to the assets of Associates.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. Whether is it necessary to make changes in form 26 and seek to provide particular informations?
2. Whether thers is need to make suitable amendment in Representative of the people Act 1951?
3. Whether non disclosing of assets and source of income of candidates and their Associates would be corrupt?
4. Whether to disclose information regarding contract with appropriate government or public company either by candidate or his/her spouse or dependent or his/her undivided family, partnership firm or private company.
5. Is it obliged to make inquiry or investigation regarding increase in assets of MP’s and MLA’s?

CONTENTION OF PETITIONER

1. The petitioner held to take certain steps for improving electoral system to strengthen our democracy.
2. The petitioner argued that the assets of some Members of Parliament and State Legislature and their Associates increased more than 5 times after they got elected in election.
3. The petitioner alleged that a list of re-elected MP’s and MLA’s assets gone peak more than 5 times which provided by ADR case, The detailed information about total income are shown in Form 26 and filed with Nomination paper of candidates. It is available on website of Election commission of India as well as Cheif Electoral Officers of State.
4. The petitioner pleaded with the Central Board of Direct Tax to check whether the increased assest is proportionate with increaseed income from known source,

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT

1. The Respondent held unfortunately in our country, neither the parliament nor the Election commission of India paid any attention to the problem do far.
2. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit by supporting petitioner that obligation of every candidate to disclose their sources of income.

ORDER OF THE COURT

• The court held that Respondent No (1) & (2) constitutionally obliged to implement the directions given by court to excercise it’s jurisdiction in constitution.
• It held that Information to voters, information regarding the source of income of candidates and their assets, which help voter to make choice of candidates and enhance transparency.
• The court also stated the inquiry and investigation is to be conducted for disproportionate increase of assets of candidates will be selective scrutiny in absence of any permanent regularly monitoring growth of assets, such investigation is political witch hunting, as it is declined.
• It also stated suitable amendment of Rule 4A of The Conduct of Election Rules and seek form 26 to provide certain information by amending is granted. Such information is necessary for vote and to make appropriate choice at the time of election.
• In Krishnamoorthy v Sivakumar & others (2015) 3 SCC 467 held that Non disclosure of assets and sources of income of candidates and their Associates is a corrupt practiced under ” undue influence ” under section 123(2) of Representatives of the people Act of 1951.
• The court held that  information regarding the contracts with appropriate government or public company either by candidate or his/her spouse or dependent or his/her undivided family, partnership firm or private company need to be furnished, such information required for disqualification on the ground of undue Accretion of assets, No obligations for disclosing it.

CONCLUSION

By this case, it is clear that our constitution has various provision regarding elections and enacted legislation which is constitutionaly valid for contesting election. Every citizen fundamental right to vote or contest elections and every candidate obliged to furnish information to people to choose their choice.

• REFERENCE:

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/24332364/

This article is written by Rubini B of Satyabhama Insititute of Science and Technology, an intern under Legal Vihdiya

Admin