Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said the voter’s right to know about the full background of a candidate - evolved through court decisions - is an additional dimension to the rich tapestry of our constitutional jurisprudence, even though the right to vote has yet not been recognised as a fundamental right as yet.

The top court dismissed a plea by Bhimrao Basanthrao Patil, BRS MP from Zahirabad constituency against the Telangana High Court's judgement which rejected his plea against an election petition. His election was challenged for non disclosure of full details about the criminal cases by unsuccessful Congress candidate K Madan Mohan Rao, among other grounds.

A bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar said the right to vote, based on an informed choice, is a crucial component of the essence of democracy. 

"This right is precious and was the result of a long and arduous fight for freedom, for Swaraj, where the citizen has an inalienable right to exercise her or his right to franchise. This finds articulation in Article 326 of the Constitution," the bench said.

The court also said democracy has been held to be a part of one of the essential features of the Constitution. Yet, somewhat paradoxically, the right to vote has not been recognised as a Fundamental Right yet; it was termed as a “mere” statutory right. 

The bench pointed out that a plain look at the election petition reveals that apart from allegations pertaining to non-disclosure of criminal cases pending against the appellant, or cases where he was convicted, other averments and allegations have been made regarding non-compliance with stipulations regarding information dissemination and the manner of dissemination through publication in newspapers, the font size, the concerned newspapers’ reach amongst the populace, etc. 

"The alleged non compliance with statutory and Election Commission mandated regulations, and their legal effect, cannot be examined in what are essentially summary proceedings under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, or even under Order XII Rule 6, CPC. Even if the allegations regarding non-disclosure of cases where the appellant has been arrayed as an accused, are ultimately true, the effect of such allegations (in the context of provisions of law and the non-disclosure of all other particulars mandated by the Election Symbols orders) has to be considered after a full trial," the bench said.

The admission of certain facts (and not all) by the election petitioner cannot be sufficient for the court to reject the petition, wholly, the bench added.

The election petitioner claimed the particulars of offences under the Minimum Wages Act and Payment of Wages Act where the candidate had been convicted as well as where he was facing criminal trial under the Indian Forest Act, were not disclosed. In support of this allegation, the election petitioner had annexed copies of a complaint and certain proceedings before the Magistrate at Garhwa. Likewise, the proceedings before the concerned Court in the.cases relating to past convictions under the Payment of Wages Act and the Minimum Wages Act were mentioned.

The appellant’s main contention was that the election petitioner’s assertions are false inasmuch as they rely upon a document, i.e., copies of certain order sheets in the pending criminal case relating to offences under the Forest Act before the Court in Garhwa and that so far as the past convictions under the Minimum Wages Act and the Payment of Wages Act are concerned, there was no requirement at all.

Rejecting his plea, the bench said, this court is of the opinion that if the appellant’s contentions were to be accepted, there would be a denial of a full-fledged trial, based on the acknowledgement that material facts were not suppressed. 

"Whether the existence of a criminal case, where a charge has not been framed, in relation to an offence which does not possibly carry a prison sentence, or a sentence for a short spell in prison, and whether conviction in a case, where penalty was imposed, are material facts, are contested. This court would be pre-judging that issue because arguendo if the effect of withholding some such information is seen as insignificant, by itself, that would not negate the possibility of a conclusion based on the cumulative impact of withholding of facts and non-compliance with statutory stipulations (which is to be established in a trial). For these reasons, this court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be faulted," the bench said.

Case Title: BHIM RAO BASWANTH RAO PATIL Vs K. MADAN MOHAN RAO & ORS.