Enforcing Electoral Transparency: Supreme Court Holds Political Parties in Contempt in BRAJESH SINGH v. SUNIL ARORA

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case BRAJESH SINGH v. SUNIL ARORA (2021 INSC 388), addressed the critical issue of criminalisation in politics. The case centered around contempt petitions filed by advocate Brajesh Singh against several political parties for failing to comply with the Court's directives aimed at increasing transparency in electoral processes, specifically concerning the disclosure of criminal antecedents of election candidates in the Bihar Legislative Assembly elections of 2020.

Summary of the Judgment

The petitioner, Brajesh Singh, alleged that several recognized political parties had disregarded the Supreme Court's orders dated 13.02.2020, which mandated the disclosure of criminal antecedents of candidates. The Court, upon reviewing the Election Commission of India's (ECI) reports and submissions from an appointed Amicus Curiae, found that multiple political parties had indeed failed to adhere to these directives. Consequently, the Court held these parties in contempt of its orders, imposing fines and issuing further directives to enhance compliance and electoral transparency.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily referenced the Constitution Bench's earlier decision in Public Interest Foundation v. Union Of India and other pertinent cases like Lily Thomas v. Union of India and M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath. These cases collectively underscored the judiciary's stance on maintaining electoral integrity and the limitations of judicial intervention in legislative domains.

Legal Reasoning

The Court reiterated the principle of separation of powers, asserting that while it can issue directions to the Election Commission, it cannot legislate or overstep boundaries set by existing laws like the Representation of People Act, 1951. However, recognizing the growing menace of criminalisation in politics, the Court emphasized the necessity of judicial measures to enforce electoral transparency, leading to the contempt proceedings against non-compliant political parties.

Impact

This judgment serves as a stern reminder to political parties about adhering to judicial directives aimed at ensuring transparent electoral processes. By holding parties in contempt, the Court reinforced the importance of honesty and integrity in politics, potentially deterring future non-compliance. Additionally, the directions issued post-contempt proceedings for enhanced disclosure mechanisms (like mobile applications and awareness campaigns) are poised to significantly empower voters with critical information about candidates.

Complex Concepts Simplified

            Contempt of Court: Refers to actions that disrespect the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. In this case, political parties were held in contempt for not following the Court's orders.
        

            Criminalisation of Politics: The involvement of individuals with criminal backgrounds in the political arena, which can undermine democratic processes and governance.
        

            Separation of Powers: A doctrine that ensures the division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another.
        

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's ruling in BRAJESH SINGH v. SUNIL ARORA marks a significant step towards curbing the criminalisation of politics in India. By holding political parties accountable for non-compliance with transparency directives, the Court has reinforced the sanctity of democratic elections and the fundamental rights of voters to make informed choices. The judgment not only underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding electoral integrity but also highlights the urgent need for legislative action to further address the infiltration of criminal elements in politics.