Case Brief: Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India

Case Name	Public Interest Foundation v Union of India
Citation	(2019) 3 SCC 224
Court	The Supreme Court of India
Bench	Justice Dipak MisraJustice RF NarimanJustice AM KhanwilkarJustice DY ChandrachudJustice Indu Malhotra
Decided on	September 25th 2018
Case No.	Writ Petition (C) No. 536 of 2011 with Criminal Appeals Nos. 1714-15 of 2007, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 208 of 2011 and Writ Petition (C) No. 800 of 2015

Introduction

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has given pioneering regulations and orders aimed at reducing the prevalent issue of criminalization in Indian politics, marking a significant legal milestone. The historic case arose from a combined petition submitted by the renowned non-governmental organisation Public Interest Foundation and BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay. The petition is an effective appeal to the Supreme Court, asking for deep understanding and guidelines on the criminalization of politics, particularly defining unambiguous restrictions on those with criminal records running for office.

Facts of the Case

Writ petitions were submitted in this matter in several instances, but the most significant one was one that was filed in 2011 asking the Indian Supreme Court for rulings on the criminalization of politics and limitations on the criminalization of electoral contestation.

A three-judge bench was initially hearing the case, but later on, it was referred to a constitutional bench under Article 145(3). The primary prayer asked for the disqualification of anybody accused in any court of law from running for office.

In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court’s Five-Judge Constitutional Bench ruled on September 25, 2018, that candidates running for office cannot be disqualified only because they are the subject of criminal proceedings. The bench further recommended that the legislature think about drafting legislation to guarantee the decriminalisation of politics.

Issues

1. Whether is it possible for the court to establish a disqualification for membership in Parliament that goes beyond the provisions of Article 102(a) to (d) and Article 102(e) of Parliament’s legislation?

Arguments

The petitioners contend that the Election Commission should be prohibited by court order from providing tickets to political parties or endorsing independent candidates with criminal histories. They also contend that if a party disobeys the 1968 Election Symbols (Reservation and Allocation) Order, it should be revoked. They contend that disobeying the law ought to exclude someone from holding public office. Nonetheless, the respondents contend that India upholds the idea of the separation of powers and that the Court lacks the authority to enact new laws. The Court is not authorized under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution to add provisions to already-existing laws.

Judgement

The Constitution Bench, consisting of five eminent justices, made a historic ruling when it decided that a candidate’s past criminal record should not cause automatic disqualification. To promote a more balanced approach, the bench asked lawmakers to consider changing current laws to further the more general goal of decriminalizing politics.

The Court required candidates to fill out an extensive form supplied by the Election Commission, emphasising the value of openness in election procedures. Specifically, this form has to clearly reveal all pertinent information, including any ongoing criminal cases against the nominee, which should be bolded and placed prominently.

The Court further strengthened the commitment to openness by requiring candidates, especially those supported by political parties, to notify their respective parties of any pending criminal prosecutions. Furthermore, political parties are now required to post comprehensive information on candidates with a criminal history on their official websites. In order to guarantee broad public knowledge, the candidate and the relevant political party must publish statements in well-known regional newspapers, along with extensive coverage in online media. This historic ruling demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to advancing informed democratic engagement and electoral integrity.

Analysis

An important first step towards promoting accountability and openness in India’s voting system is the recent direction from the Supreme Court. The court closes an important information vacuum for voters by requiring politicians to be upfront about any outstanding criminal proceedings. The court’s strategy, which strongly emphasizes accountability to the public and political parties, nonetheless, highlights an understanding of the intricate processes at work at the nexus of politics and the law.

The court adopted a paradigm that lays accountability on candidates and political parties, acknowledging the inherent issue of the courts immediately rejecting candidates based on criminal allegations. This action is consistent with the court’s view that tackling the issue of crime in politics requires arming voters with knowledge.

However, the court’s cautious optimism is based on the possibility that the deeply ingrained issue may not be totally resolved by simple disclosure. It appears that the disclosure by itself might not be a cure-all, since the percentage of lawmakers facing severe criminal charges has risen despite previous orders. The position of the court recognises the ongoing deficiencies in execution and enforcement.

The alarming fact that a candidate with a criminal record has a threefold higher chance of winning an election emphasises the necessity of a thorough reform of the political system. Although the court’s order is a positive move, it might need to be combined with more extensive institutional changes in order to successfully reduce the influence of those with criminal histories in the political arena. As a result, this ruling opens up a wider discussion about the interconnected problems of electoral reform, governance, and the judiciary’s role in fostering more accountability and transparency in India’s democracy.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the major decision rendered by the Supreme Court in response to the petition submitted by Ashwini Upadhyay, the leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and the Public Interest Foundation marks a turning point in Indian legal history. Although the court recognises the difficulties of immediately disqualifying someone based just on a criminal accusation, it still emphasises the need of candidate and party responsibility through disclosure as a critical step in addressing the criminalization of politics. The order seeks to increase electoral process openness and close the information gap for voters. But the cautious stance taken by the court and the ongoing increase in the number of politicians being charged with severe crimes highlight the necessity of extensive institutional changes. The decision initiates a more extensive discussion on governance, electoral reform, and the judiciary’s function in promoting an accountable and transparent democratic system in India.