Yesterday, while giving judgement that upheld the lodging of an election petition by Congress leader K Madan Mohan Rao, the division bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar held that an elector's right to know the detailed background of a candidate is part of constitutional jurisprudence.
The bench said that the right to vote has not been recognised as a fundamental right in India, despite democracy being an essential facet of the Constitution.
"The right to vote, based on an informed choice, is a crucial component of the essence of democracy. 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...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 High Court in March this year allowed the filing of the election petition, while keeping all contentions open during trial. This led to the present appeal by Patil before the top court, which had issued notice in the case on April 10 this year.
"The impugned order, as noticed earlier, is premised on the reasoning that any material brought on the record by the successful candidate who is a respondent in the election proceedings, ipso facto cannot be considered within the framework of Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plea altogether. That understanding in this Court’s opinion is correct."
"The alleged noncompliance with statutory and Election Commission mandated regulations, and their legal effect, cannot be examined in what are essentially summary proceedings under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, or even under Order XII Rule 6, CPC. Even if the allegations regarding non-disclosure of cases where the appellant has been arrayed as an accused, are ultimately true, the effect of such allegations ... has to be considered after a full trial. The admission of certain facts (and not all) by the election petitioner cannot be sufficient for the court to reject the petition, wholly. Even in respect of the undeniable nature of the judicial record, the effect of its content, is wholly inadequate to draw a decree in part."
Senior Advocates C Aryama Sundaram and Harin P Raval with Advocates Srinivas R Rao, N Manohar, Nisha Padmanabhan, Abid Ali Beeran P, Sarath S Janardanan, Abhishek Gupta, Zafar Inyat and Shreya Bansal appeared for BRS leader Patil.
Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Salman Khurshid with Advocates Azra Rehman, Vanya Gupta, Ankit Agarwal and Viyushti Rawat represented Congress leader Rao.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy