- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Public Interest Foundation And Others v. Union Of India And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The writ petition concerns electoral reforms and the decriminalisation of politics. In an earlier order dated 25-11-2013, the Union Government informed the Court that the matter had been referred to the Law Commission of India. Following that order, the Government filed an additional affidavit placing on record a Note dated 16-1-2013 in which the Ministry of Law and Justice requested the Law Commission to examine comprehensive electoral reforms, including State funding of elections, regulation of political parties, and disqualification of candidates with criminal antecedents.
The Election Commission of India submitted a response on 21-11-2013 recommending that persons against whom serious criminal charges have been framed at least six months before an election should be disqualified from contesting. The Law Commission circulated a “Consultation Paper on Electoral Reforms,” but had not yet submitted its final report when this interim order was passed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether disqualification of a candidate should be triggered upon conviction alone or at an earlier stage such as the framing of charges or the filing of a police report under Section 173 CrPC.
- Whether the filing of false affidavits under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, should itself constitute a ground for disqualification, and what mechanism should adjudicate the veracity of such affidavits.
Arguments of the Parties
Union of India
- Through the Additional Solicitor General, the Union stated that it had already sought the Law Commission’s opinion on electoral reforms via its Note dated 16-1-2013.
Election Commission of India
- Recommended disqualification of candidates against whom charges for offences punishable with five years or more imprisonment have been framed at least six months prior to the election.
- Supported immediate attention to the issues outlined in the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observed that the Law Commission’s comprehensive report on electoral reforms might take substantial time. Given the urgency attached to cleansing the electoral process, the Court prioritised two specific issues—decriminalisation by way of earlier disqualification triggers, and penalties for false affidavits. The Court concluded that these matters warranted accelerated consideration and could be addressed separately from the broader package of reforms.
Holding and Implications
Order: The Court requested the Law Commission of India to submit, by the end of February 2014, a focussed report on (1) the stage at which disqualification should be triggered for criminal charges and (2) whether filing false affidavits should be a ground for disqualification and the mechanism for adjudication. The Election Commission was directed to forward its affidavit to the Law Commission immediately, and the Union Government was directed to place the Law Commission’s report on record once received. The matter was listed for further hearing on 10-3-2014.
Implications: The order expedites expert consideration of two pivotal electoral reforms but sets no binding precedent. Its immediate effect is procedural—accelerating the Law Commission’s advisory role and keeping the writ petition pending for further directions.
Order
1. On 25-11-2013 WP (C) No. 536 of 2011, (2014) 13 SCC 616 (F1) Mr Paras Kuhad, learned Additional Solicitor General, submitted that for the purposes of decriminalisation of politics and electoral reforms, the matter had been referred to the Law Commission of India (for short “the Law Commission”) for consideration.
2. Pursuant to the order of 25-11-2013 WP (C) No. 536 of 2011, (2014) 13 SCC 616 (F1), an additional affidavit has been filed by the Government of India through the Deputy Secretary, in the Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice. It is stated therein that the Ministry of Law and Justice vide its Note dated 16-1-2013 had desired the Law Commission to consider and examine the issue of “electoral reforms”.
3. The Note of the Ministry of Law and Justice has been placed on record which reads as follows:
“This issue of electoral reforms has been engaging the attention of the Government for quite some time. As far back as in 1972, the Joint Parliamentary Committee on amendment of Election Law had suggested that steps should be initiated so that the burden of legitimate election expenses, as are borne by a candidate or a political party, are progressively shifted to the State. Thereafter, a number of Committees have given their recommendations, some of which have already been implemented by way of amendments in the election and other related laws. The Law Commission of India had earlier presented the 170th Report on ‘Reforms of the Election Laws’ in 1999. The issue of State funding of elections was also considered by a Group of Ministers in July 2012 when the GoM agreed that the issue was required to be examined carefully in consultation with the Election Commission.
2. With a view to advancing the issue of free and fair elections and to progressively eliminate the use of money and muscle power in elections, the funding and conduct of elections, better management of electoral system, regulation of political parties, including the audit and finance thereof and review of the anti-defection laws are some of the issues on which detailed deliberations are required. This would require consultation with the Election Commission as well as with other stakeholders. Also, there is overwhelming public opinion in the country that undesirable elements with criminal antecedents be weeded out from the legislatures and Parliament.
3. The Law Commission of India may urgently consider the issue of electoral reforms in its entirety after taking into consideration the reports of various committees in the past, views of the Election Commission and the other stakeholders and may suggest comprehensive measures for changes in the law expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months towards achieving the purpose listed in Para 2 above.”
4. It appears from the above Note that the Law Commission has been requested to suggest comprehensive measures for changes in the law expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months. We are informed that the Law Commission has not so far submitted the report pursuant to the Note dated 16-1-2013.
5. The Election Commission of India (for short “the Election Commission”) in its response dated 21-11-2013 filed before the Court had recommended that where a person has been accused of serious criminal charges, and where the court is prima facie satisfied about his involvement in the crime and consequently charges have been framed at least six months before the election for an offence punishable with imprisonment for 5 years or more, against such person, then in such cases, the said person should be disqualified from contesting elections.
6. Ms Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Counsel for the Election Commission, has placed before us a copy of the “Consultation Paper on Electoral Reforms” (for short “the Consultation Paper”) circulated by the Law Commission. The Consultation Paper indicates the issues for consideration for electoral reforms.
7. With regard to filing of false affidavits under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the two issues under consideration before the Law Commission are:
(i) Whether filing of false affidavits under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 should be a ground for disqualification and
(ii) if yes, what mode and mechanism needs to be provided for adjudication on the veracity of the affidavit?
8. It appears that the Law Commission may take some time for submitting comprehensive report on all aspects of electoral reforms as sought for by the Central Government in its Note dated 16-1-2013. We feel that the issues with regard to decriminalisation of politics and disqualification for filing false affidavits deserve priority and immediate consideration by the Law Commission.
9. We, accordingly, request the Law Commission to expedite consideration on the two issues, namely,
(1) Whether disqualification should be triggered upon conviction as it exists today or upon framing of charges by the court or upon the presentation of the report by the investigating officer under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Issue 3.1(ii) of the Consultation Paper) and
(2) Whether filing of false affidavits under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 should be a ground of disqualification? and, if yes, what mode and mechanism needs to be provided for adjudication on the veracity of the affidavit? (Issue 3.5 of the Consultation Paper).
10. This Court will appreciate if the report on the above two issues is submitted by the Law Commission to the Government of India by the end of February 2014.
11. The Election Commission may forward copy of its affidavit filed before this Court to the Law Commission immediately.
12. The Government of India on receipt of the report from the Law Commission may place the same on record of the present matter.
13. List the matter on 10-3-2014.
Court Masters
Alert