The Supreme Court addressed the issue of India’s increasing criminalization of politics in the case of public interest foundation v uoi. The goal of this important ruling was to make political parties more accountable and transparent. It emphasized the necessity for politicians running for office to declare their criminal cases, and it underscored the significance of voters making educated decisions.
public interest foundation v uoi Case Facts
- A petition to broaden the grounds for disqualification of candidates, members of the legislative assembly, and members of Parliament was filed in the Supreme Court in 2011 under article 32 of the indian constitution. The Public Interest Foundation, an NGO, and Ashwini Upadhyay, a BJP leader, filed the petition.
- The petitioners believed that because the candidate’s criminal history is kept private, voters are not fully informed of it. The petitioners stated that one of the primary causes of the criminalization of politics in India is voter ignorance.
- Therefore, in an effort to lessen the criminalization of politics, a petition was filed in the supreme court to have lawmakers and candidates declared ineligible under the “representation of peoples act, 1951 (RP act)”. The petitioners asked the court to interpret section 8 of the statute, which deals with disqualification for certain types of crimes, more broadly.
- However, Section 8 does not currently contain a clause that would disqualify a legislator or candidate based alone on the filing of criminal charges against them.
- Furthermore, the petitioners asked for the candidates who submitted fraudulent affidavits during the nomination process to be disqualified.
- The issue was initially being heard by a three-judge bench, but in 2016, article 145(3) of the indian constitution required the matter to be referred to a constitutional court.
public interest foundation v uoi Issues
- Does the court have the authority to rule against a candidate for any other cause than those listed in Section 8 and Article 102(e) of the representation of people act 1951?
- Should the disqualification occur when a candidate is found guilty or after the court files accusations against them?
- Is it possible to be disqualified under the representation of people act 1951 for filing a fraudulent affidavit?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The petitioner’s attorney contends that the court ought to take on the role of judicial statesman and that the idea ought to be seen in a more comprehensive light.
- They contended that criminal records shouldn’t control the political climate in Parliament or State Legislatures, and that lawbreakers shouldn’t be elected to office.
- The petitioners’ and intervenors’ attorneys argue that, given its authority to oversee elections, the Election Commission ought to be given explicit instructions on bolstering democracy and maintaining party discipline. They also advise against endorsing candidates with a criminal history.
- The appellant side questioned sections 227 and 228 of Cr. P. C.
Respondent:
- The petitioners contend that the Court may order the Election Commission to impose restrictions under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, if it chooses not to incorporate a previous phase in criminal cases. The argument is that a candidate facing serious criminal accusations for horrible crimes shouldn’t run under the party’s banner and shouldn’t be disqualified in any way beyond what the law already stipulates.
- The initial reply argued that an essential feature of Indian democracy is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, which guarantees that criminal penalties are not determined just by the charge.
- The respondent contends that political party members’ privacy may be impacted by Section 33A of the Act, which mandates that candidates reveal details concerning alleged violations, whether or not they run for office. Furthermore, it was contended that the Court is not authorized to amend preexisting legislation by virtue of article 142 of indian constitution.
public interest foundation v uoi Judgment
Chief Justice Dipak Mishra, Justice RF Nariman, Justice A.M. Khanwikar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, as well as Justice Indu Malhotra made up the five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court. They unanimously held that the court cannot interfere in legislative matters because it is bound by the doctrine of separation of powers and cannot pass laws to prevent people from committing horrible crimes and becoming members of parliament; instead, laws prohibiting the criminalization of politics must be passed by the parliament. Since the court cannot add to the current legislation even under the broad reading of article 142 of indian constitution.
The court issued the following directives to address the lack of public knowledge regarding the candidate’s criminal history, even though it acknowledged the petitioner’s point that there is an increase in the criminalization of politics and that it must be addressed within the bounds of the constitution:
- The court instructed the candidates to fill out the election commission form completely disclosing any criminal history they may have, and to clearly state in bold letters that they have criminal charges pending against them under a properly signed
- The court ruled that it is crucial that a candidate’s whole background be disclosed to the relevant party, and as a result, the candidate must inform the relevant political party of any criminal accusations made against
- The relevant political party must post the candidate’s criminal cases on its official website so that people can see them, as the court ruled that providing information to the party would not be adequate.
- The court ordered that the candidate’s criminal history and that of the political party to which it is affiliated be widely publicized in newspapers and electronic media. The court made it very plain that this required publishing of the information at least three times throughout the campaign.
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
