One more supreme step towards purity of elections. The
true and meaningful democracy develops through the quality of the legislators
people elect. Right to Know about of your candidate and his antecedence is a
fundamental right.
The Supreme Court got an occasion to consider the issue,
in a writ petition filed by ‘Resurgence
India’, an NGO working for social
awakening. The Court has issued guidelines empowering the Returning Officers to
reject a nomination paper if the candidate fails to fill the blank even after
the reminders by the Returning Officer. While conferring such power, it has
cautioned that such power must be exercised very sparingly and should not be at
the cost of justice.
The court held that the information about the candidate
to be selected is a must and the Right to Know of the candidate is a integral part of
Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India.
While disposing of writ petition ,
the court issued the following guidelines :
Ø The voter has the elementary right
to know full particulars of a candidate who is to represent him in the
Parliament/Assemblies and such right to get information is universally
recognized. Thus, it is held that right to know about the candidate is a
natural right flowing from the concept of democracy and is an integral part of
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Ø The ultimate purpose of filing of
affidavit along with the nomination paper is to effectuate the fundamental
right of the citizens under Article19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The
citizens are supposed to have the necessary information at the time of filing
of nomination paper and for that purpose, the Returning Officer can very well
compel a candidate to furnish the relevant information.
Ø Filing of affidavit with blank
particulars will render the affidavit nugatory.
Ø It is the duty of the Returning
Officer to check whether the information required is fully furnished at the
time of filing of affidavit with the nomination paper since such information is
very vital for giving effect to the ‘right to know’ of the citizens. If a
candidate fails to fill the blanks even after the reminder by the Returning
Officer, the nomination paper is fit to be rejected. We do comprehend that the
power of Returning Officer to reject the nomination paper must be exercised
very sparingly but the bar should not be laid so high that the justice itself
is prejudiced.
Ø To the extent that Para 73 of
People’s Union for Civil Liberties case (supra) will not come in the way of the
Returning Officer to reject the nomination paper when affidavit is filed with
blank particulars.
Ø The candidate must take the
minimum effort to explicitly remark as ‘NIL’ or ‘Not Applicable’ or ‘Not known’
in the columns and not to leave the particulars blank.
Ø Filing of affidavit with blanks
will be directly hit by Section125A(i) of the RP Act However, as the nomination
paper itself is rejected by the Returning Officer, we find no reason why the
candidate must be again penalized for the same act by prosecuting him/her.
Much of electoral reforms in India
seen today is through the intervention and directions of the Supreme Court of
India. Through the judgment, the court has brought the electoral reforms to the
next level.
No comments:
Post a Comment