Voter’s Right To Know About Full Background Of Candidate Is Added Dimension To Rich Tapestry Of Constitutional Jurisprudence: SC
The Supreme Court in an appeal has held that the voter’s right to know about the full background of a candidate is an added dimension to the rich tapestry of our constitutional jurisprudence.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar observed, “Democracy has been held to be a part of one of the essential features of the Constitution. Yet, somewhat paradoxically, the right to vote has not been recognized as a Fundamental Right yet; it was termed as a “mere” statutory right. … The elector or voter’s right to know about the full background of a candidate- evolved through court decisions- is an added dimension to the rich tapestry of our constitutional jurisprudence.”
The Bench said that the right to vote based on an informed choice is a crucial component of the essence of democracy.
Senior Advocates C. Aryama Sundaram and Harin P. Raval represented the appellant while Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid represented the respondents. Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi represented the election petitioner.
Brief Facts -
An appeal by special leave was filed challenging the judgment of the Telangana High Court whereby it dismissed the application seeking rejection of the respondent’s election petition. The appellant contended that the election petition did not disclose any cause of action and was barred in law and hence liable to be rejected.
The appellant was a successful candidate in the election conducted for the Zaheerabad Parliamentary Constituency in the year 2019 and he was declared elected by defeating the respondent with a margin of 6229 votes. The respondent preferred an election petition under the Representation of People Act, 1951 alleging that the appellant furnished false information. When the matter reached the High Court, it rejected the respondent’s election petition but the Apex Court, however, set aside the order.
The Supreme Court after considering the submissions of the counsel for the parties noted, “This right is precious and was the result of a long and arduous fight for freedom, for Swaraj, where the citizen has an inalienable right to exercise her or his right to franchise. This finds articulation in Article 326 of the Constitution which enacts that “every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than twenty one years of age on such date as may be fixed and is not otherwise disqualified under this Constitution or any law made by the appropriate Legislature on the ground of non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime or corrupt or illegal practice, shall be entitled to be registered as a voter at any such election.”
The Court said that if the appellant’s contentions were to be accepted, there would be a denial of a full-fledged trial based on the acknowledgment that material facts were not suppressed.
“Whether the existence of a criminal case, where a charge has not been framed, in relation to an offence which does not possibly carry a prison sentence, or a sentence for a short spell in prison, and whether conviction in a case, where penalty was imposed, are material facts, are contested. This court would be pre-judging that issue because arguendo if the effect of withholding some such information is seen as insignificant, by itself, that would not negate the possibility of a conclusion based on the cumulative impact of withholding of facts and non-compliance with statutory stipulations (which is to be established in a trial)”, observed the Court.
Accordingly, the Apex Court concluded that the challenged judgment cannot be faulted and hence, dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title- Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 641)
