Democracy is fundamental to our society and our constitution. Any democracy must have a transparent and equitable electoral system. Everyone has the right to vote, to run for office, to challenge laws, and to know about other important issues. The framers and members of our constitution must be chosen fairly through electoral processes.
lok prahari vs union of india Case Facts
- The petitioner in lok prahari vs union of india is a registered society under the societies registration act, made up of retired civil personnel, some of whom had previously held positions of constitutional authority.
- article 324 of the indian constitution outlines the right to vote and the right to run for office in a variety of bodies. The case centers on these rights and how they relate to the constitutional provisions that control India’s electoral process.
- The ability to vote and run for office is restricted in different ways for each body of government, and the Election Commission is established under the Constitution to oversee and manage elections.
- Article 326 describes the prerequisites for elections to the legislative assemblies and the House of People, whereas Articles 84(b) and 183(b) for the Parliament and state legislatures, respectively, specify the minimum age for eligibility.
- Furthermore, requirements and disqualifications for various elected offices are outlined in Articles 58, 66, 102, and 191.
lok prahari vs union of india Issues
- Is it required to obtain specific information and make modifications to Form 26?
- Does the representative of the people act of 1951 need to be amended appropriately?
- Would it be considered corrupt for candidates and their associates to withhold their assets and income sources from public scrutiny?
- Whether or not to reveal information on a candidate’s, spouse’s, dependents, or entire family’s contract with the relevant government or public company, partnership firm, or private enterprise.
- Is it need to look into or conduct an investigation of the rise in the MPs’ and MLAs’ assets?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- In order to bolster our democracy, the petitioner demanded that certain measures be taken to improve the electoral system.
- The petitioner contended that certain members of the State legislature, the parliament, and their associates saw an increase in wealth of more than five times following their election-related election victories.
- The petitioner claimed that an ADR case list of the assets of re-elected MPs and MLAs had increased more than five times. Form 26 contains comprehensive information regarding total income and is filed with the candidate nomination papers. Both the Chief Electoral Officers of each State and the Election Commission of India’s website have it available.
- The petitioner implored the Central Board of Direct Tax to investigate if the rise in assets corresponds with an increase in income from a recognized source.
Respondent:
- Regretfully, the respondent stated that neither the Indian parliament nor the Election Commission has addressed the issue thus far.
- In a counter affidavit, the second respondent backed the petitioner’s claim that it is mandatory for all candidates to reveal their revenue sources.
lok prahari vs union of india Judgment
- In lok prahari vs union of india, the court decided that Respondents No. (1) and (2) have a constitutional duty to carry out the court’s orders, exercising their authority within the confines of the constitution.
- The court emphasized how crucial it is to give voters information, such as specifics of a candidate’s assets and income source. The court ruled that this improves electoral transparency and empowers voters to make educated decisions.
- The court recognized the need for selective scrutiny when it came to questions and investigations into candidates’ disproportionate asset increases. The court rejected broad inquiries, viewing them as perhaps politically motivated witch hunts in the absence of a permanent and consistent monitoring framework for asset expansion.
- In the case of lok prahari vs union of india, the court approved an appropriate change to Rule 4A of The Conduct of Election Rules and ordered Form 26 to be updated with particular data. It is believed that this amendment is required to help voters make educated choices during elections.
- Referencing Krishnamoorthy v Sivakumar & others (2015) 3 SCC 467, the court reaffirmed that, in accordance with Section 123(2) of the representation of the people act of 1951, it is corrupt practice for candidates and their associates to withhold assets and income sources from them.
- In Lok Prahari v. Union of India, the court made it clear that information about contracts the candidate, their spouse, dependents, undivided family, partnership firm, or private company has with the government or public companies must be provided. Candidates are not required to reveal this information, even if it is essential for disqualification owing to undue asset accumulation.
In this particular case, it is evident that our constitution has a number of provisions pertaining to elections and implemented laws that are legitimate under the constitution for fighting elections. Every citizen has the fundamental right to vote and run for office, and all candidates are required to provide information so that voters can make an informed decision.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
