Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2002 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2002 (5) TMI 820 - SUPREME COURTWhether, before casting votes, voters have a right to know relevant particulars of their candidates? Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to issue directions, as stated below, in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Held that:- The jurisdiction of the Election Commission is wide enough to include all powers necessary for smooth conduct of elections and the word ’elections’ is used in a wide sense to include the entire process of election which consists of several stages and embraces many steps. To maintain the purity of elections and in particular to bring transparency in the process of election, the Commission can ask the candidates about the expenditure incurred by the political parties and this transparency in the process of election would include transparency of a candidate who seeks election or reelection. In a democracy, the electoral process has a strategic role. The little man of this country would have basic elementary right to know full particulars of a candidate who is to represent him in Parliament where laws to bind his liberty and property may be enacted. Under our Constitution, Article 19(1)(a) provides for freedom of speech and expression. Voters’ speech or expression in case of election would include casting of votes, that is to say, voter speaks out or expresses by casting vote. For this purpose, information about the candidate to be selected is must. Voter’s (little mancitizen’s) right to know antecedents including criminal past of his candidate contesting election for MP or MLA is much more fundamental and basic for survival of democracy. The little man may think over before making his choice of electing law breakers as law makers.It cannot be said that the directions issued by the High Court are unjustified or beyond its jurisdiction
|