Front Page   

Declaration of assets, antecedents must: SC

By J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI MARCH 13. The Supreme Court today gave a severe jolt to the Government and major political parties by striking down as "unconstitutional" a provision in the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, nullifying an earlier judgment making mandatory for candidates to declare their criminal antecedents, wealth and educational qualification, etc.

A three-Judge Bench, comprising Justice M.B. Shah, Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi and Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari, gave different but concurring judgments declaring "null and void" the controversial provision of Sec. 33 B of the amended Act.

The provision said that "notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment of any court or any order of Election Commission, no candidate shall be liable to disclose or furnish any such information, in respect of his election, which is not required to be disclosed or furnished under this Act or rules made thereunder''

The Bench held that "a voter has a fundamental right to know the antecedents of a candidate" and this right was independent of the statutory rights under the election law. Further, "a voter is first a citizen of this country and apart from statutory rights, he is having fundamental rights conferred by the Constitution".

The Bench said that "it is true that legislature is entitled to change the law with retrospective effect which form the basis of a judicial decision. This exercise of power is subject to constitutional provisions and, therefore, it cannot enact a law which is violative of fundamental right''.

The Bench held that Sec. 33 B on the face of it was beyond the legislative competence, as this court had held that voters had a fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution to know the antecedents of a candidate for various reasons.

It pointed out that the amended Act ''does not wholly cover the directions issued by the court. On the contrary, it provides that candidates would not be bound to furnish certain information as directed by the court".

Mr. Justice Shah observed that members of a democratic society should be sufficiently informed so that they might cast their votes intelligently in favour of persons who were to govern them.

He said the "right to vote would be meaningless unless citizens are well informed about the antecedents of a candidate.

"There can be little doubt that exposure to public gaze and scrutiny is one of the surest means to change our democratic governing system and to have competent Legislature," he said.

Mr. Justice Shah said the legislature could remove the basis of a decision rendered by a competent court, thereby rendering all decisions ineffective but a legislature "has no power to ask the instrumentalities of the State to disobey and disregard the decision given by the court".

Mr. Justice Shah wondered whether there was any necessity to keep the voters in the dark about the murder, dacoity or rape committed by a candidate or about his ill-gotten money which could be used for elections.

He also asked if it was not necessary to make the candidates declare their assets and liabilities and would such declaration not help in controlling the role of unaccounted wealth in the elections.

Mr. Justice Shah said that a declaration "that an order made by a court of law is void" was normally part of a judicial function and added that "legislature cannot declare that decision as not binding or is of no effect".

In his judgment, Mr. Justice Reddi said the casting of a vote marked the accomplishment of the right to the freedom of expression of the voter and held that the new electoral reforms law was not adequate to safeguard the right to information of the voter.

Mr. Justice Dharmadhikari said that the court had to intervene because the legislative field, even after the passing of the Act left a vacuum.

He said it was an half-hearted attempt in the direction of electoral reforms by the Government and a much-improved electoral system was required to make the election process both transparent and accountable so that the influence of tainted money and physical force of criminals did not make democracy a farce — the citizen's fundamental right of information should be recognised and fully effectuated.

EC hails verdict

"We welcome the judgment," said the Election Commissioner, T.S. Krishnamurthy, reacting to the verdict. Speaking to The Hindu, he said, "we sincerely hope that this judgment will pave the way for purity in electoral process and further strengthen democracy".

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• Declaration of assets, antecedents must: SC
• All-party meet to discuss verdict
• 12 killed in Mumbai train blast
• Iraq rejects British draft
• Review committee to check misuse of POTA
• Bonds offer
• Pak. arrests 36 fishermen
• 2 killed in Rajouri blast
• Marandi Govt. loses majority

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu