Case title: ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS VS ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
Case no.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 434 OF 2023
Dated on:26th April 2024
Quorum: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA and HON’BLE MR DIPANKAR DATTA
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), a non-governmental organization focused on electoral and political reforms, filed a petition against the Election Commission of India (ECI) and another respondent. The case was centered around the transparency and accountability in the electoral process, particularly regarding the disclosure of information by political candidates and parties.
ISSUES
- Whether the Election Commission should mandate candidates to disclose their criminal antecedents, assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications.
- whether the constitutionality and transparency of the electoral bonds scheme, which allows anonymous donations to political parties.
LEGAL PROVISINS
Article 324 of the Constitution of India: This article vests the power of superintendence, direction, and control of elections in India in the Election Commission.
Representation of the People Act, 1951: Sections 33A and 33B: These sections were added following a Supreme Court judgment and mandate candidates to file an affidavit declaring their criminal antecedents, assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications.
Section 29C: This section requires political parties to submit annual reports to the Election Commission disclosing donations above a certain threshold.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The counsel for the petitioners, on 24.04.2024, drew our attention to a Wikipedia article which states that firmware is a software which provides low-level control of computing device hardware etc. It also states that programmable firmware memory can be reprogrammed via a procedure sometimes called flashing. Advocate for greater transparency in the electoral process to ensure that voters are well-informed about the candidates. Argued that non-disclosure of crucial information infringes upon the voters’ right to make an informed choice, a fundamental aspect of a democratic process. Challenged the electoral bonds scheme as it allows anonymous donations, leading to a lack of transparency and potential corruption. During the course of hearing, our attention was drawn to Rule 49MA which permits an elector to raise a complaint regarding the mismatch between the name and symbol of the candidate shown on paper slip generated by the VVPAT and the vote cast on the ballot unit. Such elector is required to make a written declaration to the presiding officer.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The ECI maintained that it had taken steps towards increasing transparency but argued that certain limitations exist within the current legal framework. Defended the electoral bonds scheme as a measure to curb black money in elections, arguing that it provides a cleaner alternative to cash donations.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
We could have dismissed the present writ petitions by merely relying upon the past precedents and decisions of this Court which, in our opinion, are clear and lucid, and as repeated challenges based on suspicion and doubt, without any cogent material and data, are execrable and undesirable. However, we would like to put on record the procedure and safeguards adopted by the ECI to ensure free and fair elections and the integrity of the electoral process. For this purpose, we shall refer to and take on record the features of EVMs.14 Lastly, we would give two directions, and take on record suggestion(s) for consideration of the ECI. I also wish to observe that while maintaining a balanced perspective is crucial in evaluating systems or institutions, blindly distrusting any aspect of the system can breed unwarranted scepticism and impede progress. Instead, a critical yet constructive approach, guided by evidence and reason, should be followed to make room for meaningful improvements and to ensure the system’s credibility and effectiveness. Be it the citizens, the judiciary, the elected representatives, or even the electoral machinery, democracy is all about striving to build harmony and trust between all its pillars through open dialogue, transparency in processes, and continuous improvement of the system by active participation in democratic practices. Our approach should be guided by evidence and reason to allow space for meaningful improvements. By nurturing a culture of trust and collaboration, we can strengthen the foundations of our democracy and ensure that the voices and choices of all citizens are valued and respected. With each pillar fortified, our democracy stands robust and resilient. I conclude with the hope and trust that the system in vogue shall not fail the electorate and the mandate of the voting public shall be truly reflected in the votes cast and counted. empowered to adopt a flexible approach in such cases, acknowledging their far-reaching public interest ramifications. The writ petitions and all pending applications, including the applications for intervention, are disposed of in the above terms.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – HARIRAGHAVA JP
Click here to read the judgement
