In a historic judgment, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the election of a returned candidate will be held as null and void if he fails to disclose complete and full details of his criminal antecedents at the time of his nomination.
A Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant observed that the misconduct of a single candidate affects the entire process of his election because the non-disclosure amounted to the violation of the voter's right to take an informed choice and created an impediment in the free exercise of electoral right.
With this verdict, the apex court has stepped up its clarion call against criminalisation in politics. It clearly sends the message that mere disqualification of the errant candidate is not enough, but the ripples of his conduct should be felt by nullifying the election itself.
It observed that if a candidate has misinformed the voter, he has not only unduly influenced the voter to exercise his franchise with a misinformed mind, but also violated his “fundamental right to know.” “If a voter is denied the information and deprived of the condition to be apprised of the entire gamut of criminal antecedents relating to heinous or serious offences or offence of corruption or moral turpitude, the exercise of electoral right would not be an advised one,” Justice Misra, who wrote the verdict, observed.
The court held that disclosure of criminal antecedents by a candidate is a “categorical imperative.”
Concealment, partially or fully, of his criminal record is both a direct and indirect attempt to interfere with the free exercise of the right to vote by the electorate, the apex court held.
“Misleading voters as to character antecedents of a candidate in contemporary times is a serious interference with the free exercise of a voter’s right,” the judgment observed.
“As the candidate has special knowledge of the pending cases where cognizance has been taken or charges have been framed and there is a non-disclosure on his part, it would amount to undue influence and, therefore, the election is to be declared null and void under Section 100 (1) (b) of the 1951 Act,” the Supreme Court held.
The case pertained to an appeal against the Madras High Court’s decision to nullify panchayat elections held in Coimbatore in 2006.
