2013 (9) TMI 1311 - SC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Rejection of Nomination Papers with Incomplete Affidavits, Citing Article 19(1)(a) and Representation of People Act.

Resurgence India Versus Election Commission of India and Ors.

Resurgence India Versus Election Commission of India and Ors. - (2014) 14 SCC 189, AIR 2014 SC 34, [2013] 9 SCR 360 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe judgment primarily revolves around the following core legal questions:Whether the Returning Officers have the authority to reject nomination papers that are accompanied by affidavits with incomplete or blank particulars.Whether filing an affidavit with blank particulars violates the fundamental right of citizens to know about the candidates, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.How the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act), particularly Sections 33A, 36, and 125A, apply to the issue of incomplete affidavits.Whether the judgment in People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) restricts the Returning Officers from rejecting nomination papers due to incomplete affidavits.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Authority of Returning Officers to Reject Incomplete AffidavitsRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court examined Sections 33A, 36, and 125A of the RP Act. It also considered precedents like the Association for Democratic Reforms case and Shaligram Shrivastava v. Naresh Singh Patel.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court interpreted that the Returning Officers have the power to reject nomination papers if the affidavits are incomplete, as this would hinder the verification process necessary to determine a candidate's qualification or disqualification.Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that incomplete affidavits impede the Returning Officer's duty to ensure the transparency and integrity of the electoral process.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the provisions of the RP Act to conclude that filing an affidavit with blank particulars constitutes a defect of substantial character, warranting rejection of the nomination paper.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court dismissed the argument that incomplete affidavits should be treated on par with false affidavits, emphasizing the fundamental right to know about candidates.Conclusions: The court concluded that Returning Officers are justified in rejecting nomination papers with incomplete affidavits.Issue 2: Violation of Fundamental Right to KnowRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the Association for Democratic Reforms case were pivotal in establishing the right to know as a fundamental right.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court reasoned that citizens have a fundamental right to be informed about candidates, which is integral to the democratic process.Key Evidence and Findings: The court highlighted that incomplete affidavits undermine the voters' right to make informed decisions.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied Article 19(1)(a) to affirm that the right to know is compromised when affidavits are incomplete.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court rejected the Union of India's contention that incomplete affidavits should be treated similarly to false affidavits, as it would breach the right to know.Conclusions: The court concluded that accepting incomplete affidavits violates the fundamental right of citizens to know about their candidates.Issue 3: Application of RP Act ProvisionsRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Sections 33A, 36, and 125A of the RP Act were analyzed in the context of the issue.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court interpreted these sections to mean that incomplete affidavits are a substantial defect, justifying rejection of the nomination papers.Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that the RP Act mandates full disclosure in affidavits to ensure transparency.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied these provisions to affirm the Returning Officers' authority to reject incomplete affidavits.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court dismissed the argument that prosecution under Section 125A should suffice, stating that the rejection of nomination papers is a necessary measure.Conclusions: The court concluded that the RP Act supports the rejection of nomination papers with incomplete affidavits.Issue 4: Impact of PUCL JudgmentRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The PUCL judgment was examined to determine its impact on the rejection of incomplete affidavits.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court clarified that the PUCL judgment does not prevent the rejection of nomination papers with blank affidavits.Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that the PUCL judgment focused on the impracticality of verifying asset details at the time of scrutiny, not on incomplete affidavits.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the reasoning from PUCL to distinguish between incomplete and false affidavits.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court rejected the interpretation that PUCL bars rejection of incomplete affidavits, emphasizing the need for transparency.Conclusions: The court concluded that PUCL does not impede the rejection of nomination papers due to incomplete affidavits.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: '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.'Core Principles Established: The court established that the right to know about candidates is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a), and that incomplete affidavits violate this right.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court determined that Returning Officers have the authority to reject nomination papers with incomplete affidavits, that such rejection is necessary to uphold the fundamental right to know, and that the PUCL judgment does not bar such rejection.