| Citation | AIR (2003) SC 2363 |
| Date Of Judgment | 13th March, 2003 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Type | Writ Petition. (c) Nos.490 with 509 and 515of 2002 |
| Appellant | People’s Union of Civil Liberties (P. U.C.L) & Another |
| Respondent | Union of India & Another |
| Bench | M. B. Shah, J., P. Venkatarama Reddi, J., D.M. Dharmadhikari, J., K.G.Balkrishnan,J. |
| Referred | Section- 33A, 33B of The Representation of the People Act, 1951Article- 19(1)(a) |
FACTS OF THE CASE
Background
In the before case of Union of India Association for Democratic Reforms and Another (2002) 5 SCC 2, the Supreme Court held that citizens have right to know about public functionaries and campaigners for office, including their means and felonious and educational qualification, and that right to be deduced from the indigenous right to freedom of speech and expression. The annulled part of that ruling by amending the Representation of People Act to bear political campaigners to expose certain felonious records; any charges or conviction for any offence punishable with imprisonment for two times or further. Also, the Act expressly stated in Section 33B that “notwithstanding anything containing in the judgment of any court or direction issued by the Election Commission” no seeker could be impelled to expose any fresh information, including educational qualification and means and arrears.
The supplicant in this case, the Union for Civil Liberties( UCL), filed a solicitation with the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Section 33B. PUCL contended that the provision was arbitrary on its face and violated abecedarian rights of the choosers as preliminarily honoured by the Supreme Court; and “ that without the exercise of the right to know the applicable antecedents of the seeker, it’ll not be possible to have free and fair choices ” The interveners submitted that the Amended Act was harmonious with the 2002 judgment and “ that it cannot be held that a name has any abecedarian right of knowing the antecedents means of a seeker querying the election”.
In the Union of India. Association for Popular Reforms, (2002) 3S.C.R. 294, the Supreme Court of India honoured that the right to know about electoral campaigners falls within the right to information available under the right to freedom of speech and expression described in Composition 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. It further indicated that information about the felonious background of campaigners, means, and arrears of campaigners and their family members, and educational qualifications of campaigners should be available to the choosers as part of their right. The Election Commission issued directives to affect this judgment. Still, Section 33B made the judgment ineffective in that case and other directive. Therefore, the PUCL challenged Section 33B as violative of Composition.
ISSUES
- Whether Section 33B of The Representation of People’s Act, 1951 violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India?
JUDGMENT
P. Venkatarma Reddi, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The Supreme Court of India reiterated that Article 19(1)(a) includes the right of voters to have basic information about electoral candidates. In a republic, the will of the people is expressed in periodic elections. The availability of introductory information about the campaigners enables choosers to make an informed decision and paves the way for public debates on the graces and faults of campaigners. This in turn goes a long way in promoting freedom of speech and expression, and ensures the integrity of the electoral process in a republic. Further, freedom of expression is not limited to oral or written expression, but also includes voting as a form of expression. Even though the right to vote itself may not be a fundamental right, the expression of opinion through the final act of casting a vote is part of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
The legislature must apply its mind and lay down the criteria on which information must be disclosed. In the absence of such a law, in the case of Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 3 S.C.R. 294, the Court gave certain broad indicators for disclosure to give effect to the right under Article 19(1)(a). The Election Commission directives based on this judgment were meant to operate only until the time legislature enacted an appropriate law. While these points of disclosure serve as broad indicators for enacting a law, the legislature must give them weight.
The court declared that section 33B of The Representation Act,1951 was laid down in this judgment unconstitutional. The first reason for that is it froze and imposed a mask ban on disclosure of information of any order or judgment to abate the effect of right to information. Secondly, the act needed to bear the information with respect to the felonious background of the electoral campaigners, and means and arrears and their partner and children. Still, the court held that by not providing for disclosure of educational qualification, it cannot be said that Article 19(1)(a) has been violated.
The court directed the election commission to issue revised instruction in accordance with the law.
REFERENCES
This Article is written by Shravani Vilas Khairkar of B. C. Thakur College of Law, New Panvel, University of Mumbai, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
