Case Summary
| Citation | Lok Prahari (through General Secretary SN Shukla) v. Election Commission of India(2018)18 SCC 144 |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | The petitioner is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, consisting of retired civil servants, some of whom had held constitutional offices in the past. The case revolves around the constitutional norms governing the electoral process in India, specifically addressing the right to vote and the right to contest elections for various bodies outlined in Article 324 of the Indian Constitution. The Constitution establishes the Election Commission for the superintendence and control of elections, with limitations imposed on the rights to vote and contest elections varying for each body. Article 326 outlines criteria for elections to the House of People and legislative assemblies, while specific age requirements for eligibility are mentioned in Articles 84(b) and 183(b) for the Parliament and state legislatures, respectively. Additionally, Articles 58, 66, 102 and 191 provide qualifications and disqualifications for various elected positions. |
| Issues | Whether changes in Form 26 to provide specific information are necessary? Whether amendments to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, are needed? Whether non-disclosure of assets and income sources by candidates and associates constitutes corruption? Whether candidates must disclose information about contracts with the government or public companies? Whether there is an obligation to investigate the significant increase in assets of MPs and MLAs ? |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | The court emphasised the importance of providing information to voters, including details about the source of income and assets of candidates. This, the court held, enables voters to make informed choices and enhances transparency in the electoral process. The court acknowledged that while inquiries and investigations into disproportionate increases in candidates‘ assets are necessary, such scrutiny should be selective. Without a consistent and permanent monitoring mechanism for asset growth, the court deemed wide-ranging investigations as potentially politically motivated witch hunts and therefore, declined them. The court in this endorsed a suitable amendment to Rule 4A of The Conduct of Election Rules and directed the modification of Form 26 to include specific information. This amendment is deemed necessary to aid voters in making informed decisions during elections. Citing Krishnamoorthy v Sivakumar & others (2015) 3 SCC 467, the court reiterated that non-disclosure of assets and sources of income by candidates and their associates constitutes a corrupt practice under ―undue influence‖ as per Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act of 1951. |
| Judgement | The court in Lok Prahari vs Union of India clarified that information regarding contracts with the government or public companies, whether by the candidate, their spouse, dependents, undivided family, partnership firm or private company, needs to be furnished. While such information is crucial for disqualification on the grounds of undue accretion of assets, there is no obligation for candidates to disclose it. |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
