Date: Monday, [25 July 2023]
The Supreme Court of India has emphasized that democracy, being an essential feature of the Constitution, grants voters the right to be informed about the complete background of a candidate. The right to vote, though currently considered a statutory right, plays a crucial role in upholding the essence of democracy and allows citizens to make informed choices.
The apex court's observation came during the consideration of a challenge to the order of the Telangana High Court, which dismissed an application seeking the rejection of an election petition filed against Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil, an elected candidate from Zaheerabad in 2019.
The election petition was filed on the grounds of non-disclosure of certain pending cases against Patil. However, the appellant argued that the petition lacked cause of action and should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision and asserted that the right to vote is a precious aspect of freedom, fought for during the struggle for Swaraj. Article 326 of the Constitution guarantees the right to vote for every Indian citizen above the age of twenty-one, without any disqualifications on grounds of non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime, or corrupt practices.
Despite democracy being recognized as an essential feature of the Constitution, the right to vote is surprisingly not yet considered a Fundamental Right. However, the court reiterated that the right to vote, based on informed choice, is an integral part of the democratic fabric.
The court further explained that Section 33A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, compels candidates to disclose information about their criminal antecedents to ensure transparency and enable voters to make informed decisions. Notably, Section 33-B, which allowed candidates to withhold certain information, was previously deemed invalid and unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
The court underscored that the truth of allegations is a matter of evidence and must be evaluated in a full-blown trial. Mere admissions of certain facts by the election petitioner are insufficient to warrant the rejection of the petition as a whole.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Sundaram argued that certain allegations against Patil were clearly interpolated. On the other hand, Senior Advocate Dr. A.M. Singhvi contended that courts must examine allegations against candidates within the statutory framework without adopting a hyper-technical approach.
The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that a full-fledged trial is necessary to ascertain the significance of withholding certain information and non-compliance with statutory stipulations.
Case Title: Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil V. K. Madan Mohan Rao & Ors, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6614 Of 2023
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy