Public Interest Foundation v UOI

CITATION	Writ Petition (Civil) No. 536 of 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT	September 25, 2018
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Public Interest Foundation & Ors.
RESPONDENT	Union of India & Anr.
BENCH	Indu Malhotra, D.Y. Chandrachud, A.M. Khanwilkar, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Dipak Misra

INTRODUCTION

The Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India case, which was initiated by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay and the NGO Public Interest Foundation, is a significant case in Indian law aimed at curbing the criminalization of politics. The Supreme Court has issued guidelines and directions to limit the criminalization of politics in the country. According to the court’s ruling, charges framed against a candidate in a criminal case do not automatically lead to their disqualification. The court has also urged the legislature to consider enacting a law that would ensure the decriminalization of politics. This case has sparked debates on the necessary reforms to diminish the influence of individuals with criminal backgrounds in Indian politics.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. A writ petition was filed under article 32 of the Indian constitution before the Supreme Court of India in 2011.
2. The Public Interest Foundation, along with BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay, filed a writ in the Supreme Court seeking help regarding the criminalisation of politics and electoral disqualification.
3. Their main appeal was to disqualify politicians with criminal backgrounds under the Representation of People’s Act 1951 and to disqualify individuals who submit false affidavits.
4. In 2016, a division bench of three judges referred this matter to a constitutional bench, but they rejected it because they had already decided a similar matter in the case of Manoj Narula in 2014.
5. On September 25, 2018, the five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court made a crucial decision regarding candidates contesting elections. The bench held that charges framed against a candidate in a criminal case cannot lead to their disqualification from the election. The bench further recommended the legislature to consider framing a law that ensures politics is decriminalized.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the court have the right to disqualify a candidate for reasons other than those mentioned in Article 102(e) and Section 8 of the Representation of People Act 1951?
2. Whether the disqualification be imposed when a candidate is convicted, or when charges are framed against them by the court?
3. Whether filing a false affidavit under the Representation of People Act 1951 be considered as a valid reason for disqualification?

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT

1. The petitioner’s counsel argues that the concept should be viewed from a broader perspective, and the court should assume a judicial statesmanlike role.
2. They argued that lawbreakers should not become lawmakers and that criminal records should not dominate the political atmosphere in Parliament or State Legislatures.
3. The counsel for petitioners and intervenors suggest that the Election Commission should be given specific directions to strengthen democracy and control party discipline, urging against encouraging candidates with criminal antecedents, given its power to supervise elections.
4. Section 227 and 228 of Cr. P. C. were questioned by the appellant side.

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

1. The petitioners argue that if the Court doesn’t want to include a prior stage in criminal trials, it can direct the Election Commission to include conditions in the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. The submission is that a candidate with criminal charges against heinous offences should not contest with the party’s symbol, not adding a disqualification beyond what is provided by the legislature.
2. The first respondent contended that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a fundamental aspect of Indian democracy, ensuring that criminal consequences are not solely based on charge.
3. The respondent argues that Section 33A of the Act, which requires candidates to disclose information about accused offenses, could potentially impact the privacy of political party members, regardless of whether they contest elections. In addition it was argued that Article 142 does not grant the Court the power to add words to existing laws.

JUDGEMENT

Court requested the Law Commission of India to expedite consideration of the two issues. The Law Commission has prepared its recommendation in the form of 244^th Report. They criticized the current system of disqualification for political officials, stating that it is insufficient to curb the growing criminalization of politics due to long trials and rare convictions. They believe that the filing of a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not an appropriate stage for introducing electoral disqualifications, as it lacks sufficient judicial application. The Commission suggests that disqualification should include offenses with a maximum punishment of five years or more, and charges filed up to one year before election nomination scrutiny will not lead to disqualification. The disqualification will continue until an acquittal by the trial court or six years, whichever is earlier. For charges against sitting MPs/MLAs, trials should be expedited and concluded within a year, with the possibility of disqualification or suspension of their right to vote in the House.

The Law Commission has proposed changes to The Representation of the People Act, 1951, to address large-scale violations of candidate affidavit laws. These changes include introducing an enhanced sentence of two years under Section 125A for filing false affidavits, including conviction as a ground for disqualification under Section 8(1), and including false affidavits as a corrupt practice under Section 123. The Supreme Court may order day-to-day trials in all trials under Section 125A, and a one-week gap between nomination papers and scrutiny to allow objections. The commission also proposes legislative reforms through amendments to various provisions of the RP Act. The commission also suggests a direction for MPs/MLAs to conclude their trials expeditiously to maintain public office probity. If the trial cannot be concluded within one year, the Chief Justice may issue directions to the concerned court.

ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court had mandated that political candidates with criminal cases be accountable to their parties and the public, assuming that voters lacked necessary information. However, the proportion of parliament members facing serious criminal charges increased rapidly from 24% in 2004 to 30% and 15% in 2009, and then to 34% and 21% in 2014. Surprisingly, a candidate facing a criminal case was three times more likely to win in elections than one without. The judgment is disappointing, as the bench shares concerns about the growing criminalization of politics and the threat to the constitution’s basic structure. Unfortunately, the court expressed its inability to go beyond what it did due to the doctrine of separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court of India has recently upheld the concept of separation of power in order to safeguard the integrity and democracy of the country. The court has also recognized the need for electoral reforms in India, but it did not directly interfere in this matter. Instead, it directed the election commission to expedite the consideration of specific issues. As per the election commission’s recommendation, disqualification should include offenses with a maximum punishment of 5 years or more. Charges filed up to 1 year before the election nomination scrutiny will not lead to disqualification. Additionally, the charges against sitting MLAs/MPs should be expedited and concluded within a year. The commissioner recommended making the punishment for filing false affidavits more stringent and proposed safeguards to protect candidates. The court has also clarified the role of the election commission in relation to the law made by parliament.

REFERENCES

1. Public Interest Foundation vs Union Of India on 25 September, 2018 (indiankanoon.org) 
2. Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India – Law Times Journal
3. Framing of Criminal Charges & Electoral Disqualification – Supreme Court Observer (scobserver.in)
4. Public Interest Foundation And Others v. Union Of India And Another | Supreme Court Of India | Judgment | Law | CaseMine

This article is written by Biraj Kumar Sarkar, student of Surendranath Law College, Calcutta University (CU); Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the 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 of a personal nature.