Page 1

       REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 121 OF 2008

Resurgence India          .... Petitioner (s)

Versus

Election Commission of India & Anr.             .... Respondent(s)       

J U D G M E N T

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) This writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution of  

India, has been filed to issue specific directions to effectuate  

meaningful  implementation  of  the  judgments  rendered by  

this  Court  in  Union  of  India vs.  Association  for  

Democratic Reforms and Another (2002) 5 SCC 294 and  

People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Another  

vs.  Union of India & Anr. (2003) 4 SCC 399 and also to  

direct the respondents herein to make it compulsory for the  

Returning Officers to ensure that the affidavits filed by the  

1

Page 2

contestants are complete in all  respects and to reject the  

affidavits having blank particulars.

Background:

2) In  order  to  maintain  purity  of  elections  and  to  bring  

transparency  in  the  process  of  election,  this  Court,  in  

Association for  Democratic  Reforms (supra),  directed  

the Election Commission of India-Respondent No. 1 herein to  

issue necessary orders, in exercise of its power under Article  

324 of the Constitution, to call  for information on affidavit  

from each candidate seeking election to the Parliament or a  

State  Legislature  as  a  necessary  part  of  his  nomination  

paper  furnishing  therein  information  relating  to  his  

conviction/acquittal/discharge in any criminal offence in the  

past,  any  case  pending  against  him  of  any  offence  

punishable  with  imprisonment  for  2  years  or  more,  

information  regarding  assets  (movable,  immovable,  bank  

balance etc.) of the candidate as well as of his/her spouse  

and that of dependants, liability, if any, and the educational  

qualification of the candidate.

2

Page 3

3) Pursuant to the above order, the Election Commission,  

vide order dated 28.06.2002, issued certain directions to the  

candidates to furnish full  and complete information in  the  

form of an affidavit, duly sworn before a Magistrate of the  

First  Class,  with  regard  to  the  matters  specified  in  

Association  for  Democratic  Reforms  (supra).   It  was  

also  directed  that  non-furnishing  of  the  affidavit  by  any  

candidate  or  furnishing  of  any  wrong  or  incomplete  

information or suppression of any material information will  

result in the rejection of the nomination paper, apart from  

inviting penal  consequences under the Indian Penal  Code,  

1860.  It was further clarified that only such information shall  

be considered to be wrong or incomplete or suppression of  

material  information  which  is  found  to  be  a  defect  of  

substantial  character  by  the  Returning  Officer  in  the  

summary inquiry conducted by him at the time of scrutiny of  

nomination papers.     

4)  In  People’s  Union  for  Civil  Liberties (PUCL)  

(supra),   though this Court reaffirmed the aforementioned  

decision  but  also  held  that  the  direction  to  reject  the  

3

Page 4

nomination  papers  for  furnishing  wrong  information  or  

concealing  material  information  and  verification  of  assets  

and liabilities by means of a summary inquiry at the time of  

scrutiny of the nominations cannot be justified.   

5) Pursuant to the above, the Election Commission, vide  

order  dated  27.03.2003,  held  its  earlier  order  dated  

28.06.2002  non-enforceable  with  regard  to  verification  of  

assets  and  liabilities  by  means  of  summary  inquiry  and  

rejection of nomination papers on the ground of furnishing  

wrong information or suppression of material information.   

6) Again,  the  Election  Commission  of  India,  vide  letter  

dated 02.06.2004 directed the Chief Electoral Officers of all  

the States and Union Territories that where any complaint  

regarding furnishing of false information by any candidate is  

submitted  by  anyone,  supported  by  some  documentary  

evidence,  the  Returning  Officer  concerned  should  initiate  

action to prosecute the candidate concerned by filing formal  

complaint before the appropriate authority.

Brief facts:         

4

Page 5

7) In the above backdrop,  the brief  facts of the case in  

hand are as under:- Resurgence India-the petitioner herein is  

a non-governmental organization (NGO) registered under the  

Societies  Registration  Act,  1860  and  is  working  for  social  

awakening, social empowerment, human rights and dignity.  

During  Punjab  Legislative  Assembly  Elections,  2007,  the  

petitioner-organization undertook a massive exercise under  

the banner “Punjab Election Watch’ and affidavits pertaining  

to the candidates of six major political parties in the State  

were analyzed in order to verify their completeness.  During  

such campaign, large scale irregularities were found in most  

of the affidavits filed by the candidates.    

8) On  09.02.2007,  the  petitioner-organization  made  a  

representation to the Election Commission of India regarding  

large number of non-disclosures in the affidavits filed by the  

contestants in the State of Punjab and poor level of scrutiny  

by the Returning Officers.  Vide letter dated 20.02.2007, the  

Election  Commission  of  India  expressed  its  inability  in  

rejecting the nomination papers of the candidates solely due  

to furnishing of false/incomplete information in the affidavits  

5

Page 6

in  view  of  the  judgment  in  People’s  Union  for  Civil   

Liberties (PUCL) (supra).   

9) Being  aggrieved  of  the  same,  the  petitioner-

organization has preferred this petition for the issuance of a  

writ of  mandamus to make it compulsory for the Returning  

Officers to ensure that the affidavits filed by the contestants  

should  be  complete  in  all  respects  and  to  reject  those  

nomination  papers  which  are  accompanied  by  

incomplete/blank affidavits.  The petitioner-organization also  

prayed for deterrent action against the Returning Officers in  

case of acceptance of such incomplete affidavits in order to  

remove deficiencies in the format of the prescribed affidavit.  

10) Heard Mr.  Prashant Bhushan,  learned counsel  for  the  

petitioner-organization,  Ms.  Meenakshi  Arora,  learned  

counsel for the Election Commission of India-Respondent No.  

1 herein and Mr. A. Mariarputham, learned senior counsel for  

the Union of India.

Prayer/Relief Sought for:

Stand of the Petitioner-Organization:

6

Page 7

11) The  Petitioner-organization  pleaded  for  issuance  of  

appropriate  writ/direction  including  the  writ  of  mandamus  

directing the respondents herein to make it compulsory for  

the Returning Officers to ensure that the affidavits filed by  

the  candidates  are  complete  in  all  respects  and to  reject  

those nomination papers, which are accompanied by blank  

affidavits.

Stand of the Election Commission of India:

It is the stand of the Election Commission of India that the  

judgment  in  People’s Union for Civil  Liberties (PUCL)  

(supra) does not empower the Returning Officers to reject  

the  nomination  papers  solely  due  to  furnishing  of  

false/incomplete/blank information in the affidavits signed by  

the candidates. In succinct, they put forth the argument that  

they do not have any latitude for rejecting the nomination  

papers in view of the above mentioned judgment.  However,  

learned counsel for the Election Commission of India made  

an  assertion  that  the  Election  Commission  too  is  of  the  

opinion that incomplete nomination papers must be rejected.  

7

Page 8

Hence,  the  Election  Commission  of  India  sought  for  

clarification in that regard.  

Stand of the Union of India:  

The Union of India also put forth the similar contention as  

raised by the Election Commission.  Interestingly, the Union  

of  India  also  raised  a  query  as  to  how this  Court  will  be  

justified  in  accepting  the  nomination  paper  with  false  

information  but  rejecting  the  nomination  paper  for  filing  

affidavit  with particulars  left  blank and hence prayed that  

both the abovesaid situations must be treated at par.   

Discussion:  

12) Both  the  petitioner-organisation  and  the  

respondent/UOI sought divergent remedies against the same  

situation  viz.,  wherein  the  affidavit  filed  by  the  candidate  

stating the information given as correct but the particulars of  

the  same  are  left  blank.   The  petitioner-organisation  is  

seeking for rejection of nomination paper in such a situation  

whereas the Union of India is pleading for treating it at par  

with  filing  false  affidavit  and  to  prosecute  the  candidate  

8

Page 9

under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act,  

1951 (in short ‘the RP Act’).  

13) In order to appreciate the issue involved, it is desirable  

to refer the relevant provisions of the RP Act.  Sections 33A,  

36 and 125A of the RP Act read as under:

“33A.  Right  to  information.—(1)  A  candidate  shall,  apart  from  any  information  which  he  is  required to furnish, under this Act or the rules made  thereunder, in his nomination paper delivered under  sub-section  (1)  of  section  33,  also  furnish  the  information as to whether – (i) he is accused of any offence punishable with  imprisonment  for  two years  or  more  in  a  pending  case in which a charge has been framed by the court  of competent jurisdiction; (ii) he  has  been  convicted  of  an  offence  [other  

than any offence referred to in  sub-section (1)  or  sub- section (2), or covered in sub-section (3), of section 8]  and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more.

(2) The candidate or his proposer, as the case may  be, shall,  at the time of delivering to the returning  officer the nomination paper under sub-section (1) of  section 33, also deliver to him an affidavit sworn by  the  candidate  in  a  prescribed  form  veryfying  the  information specified in sub-section (1). (3)  The returning  officer  shall,  as  soon as  may be  after the furnishing of information to him under sub- section  (1),  display  the  aforesaid  information  by  affixing a copy of the affidavit, delivered under sub- section (2), at a conspicuous place at his office for  the  information  of  the  electors  relating  to  a  constituency  for  which  the  nomination  paper  is  delivered. 36. Scrutiny of nomination.—(1) On the date fixed  for the scrutiny of nominations under section 30, the  

9

Page 10

candidates,  their  election  agents,  one  proposer  of  each  candidate,  and  one  other  person  duly  authorized in writing by each candidate, but no other  person, may attend at such time and place as the  returning  officer  may  appoint;  and  the  returning  officer  shall  give  them all  reasonable  facilities  for  examining the nomination  papers  of  all  candidates  which have been delivered within the time and in the  manner laid down in section 33. (2)  The  returning  officer  shall  then  examine  the  nomination  papers  and  shall  decide  all  objections  which  may  be  made  to  any  nomination  and  may,  either on such objection or on his own motion, after  such summary inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary,  reject  any  nomination  on  any  of  the  following  grounds:— (a)  that  on  the  date  fixed  for  the  scrutiny  of  nominations the candidate either is not qualified or is  disqualified  for  being chosen to  fill  the seat  under  any  of  the  following  provisions  that  may  be  applicable, namely: Articles 84, 102, 173 and 191,  

Part II of this Act, and sections 4 and 14 of the  Government  of  Union  Territories  Act,  1963  (20  of  1963); or (b) that there has been a failure to comply with any  of the provisions of section 33 or section 34 ; or (c)  that  the  signature  of  the  candidate  or  the  proposer on the nomination paper is not genuine. (3) Nothing contained in clause (b) or clause (c) of  sub-section  (2)  shall  be  deemed  to  authorize  the  rejection of the nomination of any candidate on the  ground of any irregularity in respect of a nomination  paper, if the candidate has been duly nominated by  means  of  another  nomination  paper  in  respect  of  which no irregularity has been committed. (4)  The  returning  officer  shall  not  reject  any  nomination paper on the ground of any defect which  is not of a substantial character. (5) The returning officer shall hold the scrutiny on the  date  appointed  in  this  behalf  under  clause  (b)  of  section 30 and shall  not  allow any adjournment of  the proceedings except when such proceedings are  

10

Page 11

interrupted or obstructed by riot or open violence or  by causes beyond his control:  Provided that in case an objection is raised by the  returning officer or is made by any other person the  candidate concerned may be allowed time to rebut it  not  later  than  the  next  day but  one  following  the  date fixed for scrutiny, and the returning officer shall  record  his  decision  on  the  date  to  which  the  proceedings have been adjourned. (6)  The  returning  officer  shall  endorse  on  each  nomination paper his decision accepting or rejecting  the same and, if  the nomination paper is rejected,  shall  record  in  writing  a  brief  statement,  of  his  reasons for such rejection. (7) For the purposes of this section, a certified copy  of an entry in the electoral roll for the time being in  force of a constituency shall be conclusive evidence  of the fact that the person referred to in that entry is  an elector for that constituency, unless it is proved  that he is subject to a disqualification mentioned in  section 16 of the Representation of the People Act,  1950 (43 of 1950). (8) Immediately after all the nomination papers have  been scrutinized and decisions accepting or rejecting  the same have been recorded, the returning officer  shall prepare a list of validly nominated candidates,  that is  to say,  candidates whose nominations have  been found valid, and affix it to his notice board.

125A. Penalty for filing false affidavit, etc.—A  candidate who himself or through his proposer, with  intent to be elected in an election,- (i)  fails to furnish information relating to sub-section  (1) of section 33A; or (ii)  gives  false  information which  he  knows  or  has  reason to believe to be false; or (iii)  conceals  any  information,  in  his  nomination  paper delivered under sub-section (1) of section 33  or in his affidavit which is required to be delivered  under  sub-section  (2)  of  section  33A,  as  the  case  may be, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in  any  other  law  for  the  time  being  in  force,  be  

11

Page 12

punishable with imprisonment for a term which may  extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.”

14) In  view  of  the  above,  the  power  to  reject  the  

nomination paper by the Returning Officer on the instance of  

candidate filing the affidavit with particulars left blank can  

be derived from the reasoning of a three-Judge Bench of this  

Court in Shaligram Shrivastava vs. Naresh Singh Patel  

(2003)  2  SCC  176.  In  the  aforesaid  case,  the  nomination  

paper  of  a  candidate got  rejected at  the  time of  scrutiny  

under Section 36(2) of the RP Act on the ground that he had  

not  filled  up  the  proforma  prescribed  by  the  Election  

Commission  wherein  the  candidate  was  required  to  state  

whether  he  had  been  convicted  or  not  for  any  offence  

mentioned  in  Section  8  of  the  RP  Act.  In  actual,  the  

candidate  therein  had  filed  an  affidavit  stating  that  the  

information  given  in  the  proforma  was  correct  but  the  

proforma  itself  was  left  blank.   The  candidate  therein  

coincidentally  raised  somewhat  similar  contention  as  

pleaded  by  the  Union  of  India  in  the  present  case.  The  

candidate pleaded that his nomination paper could not be  

rejected on the ground that he had not filled up the proforma  

12

Page 13

prescribed since no such proforma was statutorily provided  

under the provisions of the Act or under the rules framed  

thereunder. It was contended that the Commission could not  

legislate to prescribe a proforma; at best it can only be an  

executive  instruction  of  the  Election  Commission  whereas  

the petitioner had filled the proforma prescribed under the  

Rules, which did not suffer from any defect.

15) Although, the grounds of contention may not be exactly  

similar to the case on hand but the reasoning rendered in  

that verdict will come in aid for arriving at a decision in the  

given case. In order to arrive at a conclusion in that case,  

this Court traversed through the objective behind filing the  

proforma. The proforma mandated in that case was required  

to be filed as to the necessary and relevant information with  

regard to the candidate in the light of Section 8 of the RP  

Act. This Court further held that at the time of scrutiny, the  

Returning Officer is entitled to satisfy himself whether the  

candidate  is  qualified  and  not  disqualified,  hence,  the  

Returning Officer was authorized to seek such information to  

be furnished at the time or before scrutiny. It  was further  

13

Page 14

held that if  the candidate  fails to furnish such information  

and also absents himself at the time of the scrutiny of the  

nomination papers, then he is obviously avoiding a statutory  

inquiry  being  conducted  by  the  Returning  Officer  under  

Section 36(2) of the RP Act relating to his being not qualified  

or disqualified in the light of Section 8 of the RP Act. It is  

bound to result in defect of a substantial  character in the  

nomination. This Court further held as under:-  

“17. In the case in hand the candidate had failed to furnish  such information as sought on the pro forma given to him  and had also failed to be present personally or through his  representative  at  the  time  of  scrutiny.  The  statutory  duty/power of Returning Officer for holding proper scrutiny  of nomination paper was rendered nugatory. No scrutiny of  the nomination paper could be made under Section  36(2)  of the Act in the light of Section  8 of the Act. It certainly  rendered  the  nomination  paper  suffering  from defect  of  substantial character and the Returning Officer was within  his rights in rejecting the same.”  

16) It is clear that the Returning Officers derive the power  

to  reject  the  nomination  papers  on  the  ground  that  the  

contents  to  be  filled  in  the  affidavits  are  essential  to  

effectuate the intent of the provisions of the RP Act and as a  

consequence, leaving the affidavit blank will in fact make it  

impossible  for  the Returning Officer  to  verify  whether  the  

14

Page 15

candidate  is  qualified  or  disqualified  which  indeed  will  

frustrate the object behind filing the same. In concise, this  

Court in  Shaligram (supra) evaluated the purpose behind  

filing the proforma for advancing latitude to the Returning  

Officers to reject the nomination papers.

17) In the light of the above reasoning, now let us assess  

the facts of the given case. In Association for Democratic  

Reforms (supra), this Court arrived at a decision that the  

members  of  a  democratic  society  should  be  sufficiently  

informed  so  that  they  may  influence  intelligently  the  

decisions which may affect themselves and it would include  

their  decision  of  casting  votes  in  favour  of  a  particular  

candidate.  This  Court  further  held  that  if  there  was  a  

disclosure  by  a  candidate  with  regard  to  his  criminal  

antecedents,  assets  and  liabilities  and  educational  

qualification, then it would strengthen the voters in taking  

appropriate decision of casting their votes. This Court further  

stated as under:-

“38. If right to telecast and right to view to sport games  and right to impart such information is considered to be  

15

Page 17

over  before  making  his  choice  of  electing  law- breakers as law-makers.”

18) Thus, this Court held that a voter has the elementary  

right  to  know  full  particulars  of  a  candidate  who  is  to  

represent  him  in  the  Parliament  and  such  right  to  get  

information  is  universally  recognized  natural  right  flowing  

from the concept of democracy and is  an integral  part  of  

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It was further held that  

the voter's speech or expression in case of election would  

include casting of votes, that is to say,  voter speaks out or  

expresses  by  casting  vote. For  this  purpose,  information  

about  the  candidate  to  be  selected  is  a  must.  Thus,  in  

unequivocal terms, it is recognized that the citizen’s right to  

know of the candidate who represents him in the Parliament  

will  constitute  an  integral  part  of  Article  19(1)(a)  of  the  

Constitution of India and any act, which is derogative of the  

fundamental rights is at the very outset ultra vires.

19) With this background, Section 33A of the RP Act was  

enacted  by  Act  72  of  2002  with  effect  from  24.08.2002.  

Thus, the purpose of the Act 72 of 2002 was to effectuate  

17

Page 18

the  right  contemplated  in  Association  for  Democratic  

Reforms  (supra). However,  the  legislators  did  not  

incorporate all the suggestions as directed by this Court in  

the  above  case  but  for  mandating  all  the  candidates  to  

disclose the criminal antecedents under Section 33A by filing  

an affidavit as prescribed along with the nomination paper  

filed under Section 33(1) of the RP Act so that the citizens  

must be aware of the criminal antecedents of the candidate  

before they can exercise their freedom of choice by casting  

of votes as guaranteed under the Constitution of India. As a  

result,  at  present,  every  candidate  is  obligated  to  file  an  

affidavit  with  relevant  information  with  regard  to  their  

criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities and educational  

qualifications.  

20) Let us now test whether the filing of affidavit stating that  

the information given in the affidavit is correct but leaving  

the contents blank would fulfill the objective behind filing the  

same.  The  reply  to  this  question  is  a  clear  denial.  The  

ultimate  purpose  of  filing  of  affidavit  along  with  the  

nomination paper is to effectuate the fundamental right of  

18

Page 19

the citizen under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.  

The citizens are required to have the necessary information  

at the time of filing of the nomination paper in order to make  

a choice of their voting. When a candidate files an affidavit  

with blank particulars, it renders the affidavit itself nugatory.

21) For that purpose, the Returning Officer can very well  

compel a candidate to furnish information relevant on the  

date  of  scrutiny.  We  were  appraised  that  the  Election  

Commission  already  has  a  standard  draft  format  for  

reminding the candidates to file an affidavit  as stipulated.  

We are of the opinion that along with the above,  another  

clause may be inserted for reminding the candidates to fill  

the blanks with the relevant information thereby conveying  

the message that no affidavit with blank particulars will be  

entertained. We reiterate that it is the duty of the Returning  

Officer to check whatever the information required is fully  

furnished at the time of filing of affidavit with the nomination  

paper since such information is very vital for giving effect to  

the ‘right to know’ of the citizens. If a candidate fails to fill  

the blanks even after the reminder by the Returning Officer,  

19

Page 20

the  nomination  paper  is  fit  to  be  rejected.  We  do  

comprehend that the power of Returning Officer to reject the  

nomination paper must be exercised very sparingly but the  

bar  should  not  be  laid  so  high  that  the  justice  itself  is  

prejudiced.

22) We  also  clarify  to  the  extent  that  in  our  coherent  

opinion the above power of rejection by the Returning Officer  

is  not  barred  by  Para  73  of  People’s  Union  for  Civil   

Liberties (PUCL) (supra) which reads as under:-  

“73. While no exception can be taken to the insistence of  affidavit  with  regard  to  the  matters  specified  in  the  judgment  in  Assn  for  Democratic  Reforms  case,  the  direction  to  reject  the  nomination  paper  for  furnishing  wrong information or concealing material information and  providing for a summary enquiry at the time of scrutiny of  the nominations, cannot be justified. In the case of assets  and liabilities, it would be very difficult for the Returning  Officer  to  consider  the  truth  or  otherwise  of  the  details  furnished with reference to the 'documentary proof'. Very  often, in such matters the documentary proof may not be  clinching  and  the  candidate  concerned  may  be  handicapped  to  rebut  the  allegation  then  and  there.  If  sufficient  time  is  provided,  he  may  be  able  to  produce  proof to contradict the objector's version. It is true that the  aforesaid directions issued by the Election Commission are  not under challenge but at the same time  prima facie it  appears that the Election Commission is required to revise  its instructions in the light of directions issued in  Assn for  Democratic  Reforms  case  and  as  provided  under  the  Representation  of  the  People  Act  and  its  third  Amendment.”

20

Page 21

23) The  aforesaid  paragraph,  no  doubt,  stresses  on  the  

importance of  filing  of  affidavit,  however,  opines  that  the  

direction to reject the nomination paper for furnishing wrong  

information or concealing material information and providing  

for  a  summary  inquiry  at  the  time  of  scrutiny  of  the  

nominations cannot  be justified since in  such matters the  

documentary proof may not be clinching and the candidate  

concerned may be handicapped to rebut the allegation then  

and there.  This  Court  was of  the opinion that  if  sufficient  

time  is  provided,  the  candidate  may  be  in  a  position  to  

produce  proof  to  contradict  the  objector's  version.  The  

object  behind penning down the aforesaid reasoning is  to  

accommodate  genuine  situation  where  the  candidate  is  

trapped  by  false  allegations  and  is  unable  to  rebut  the  

allegation  within  a  short  time.  Para  73  of  the  aforesaid  

judgment nowhere contemplates a  situation where it  bars  

the  Returning  Officer  to  reject  the  nomination  paper  on  

account  of  filing  affidavit  with  particulars  left  blank.  

Therefore, we hereby clarify that the above said paragraph  

will not come in the way of the Returning Officer to reject the  

21

Page 22

nomination  paper  if  the  said  affidavit  is  filed  with  blank  

columns.  The candidate must  take the  minimum effort  to  

explicitly remark as ‘NIL’ or ‘Not Applicable’ or ‘Not known’ in  

the  columns and not  to  leave the  particulars  blank,  if  he  

desires  that  his  nomination  paper  be  accepted  by  the  

Returning Officer.  

24) At this juncture, it is vital to refer to Section 125A of the  

RP Act. As an outcome, the act of failure on the part of the  

candidate to furnish relevant information, as mandated by  

Section 33A of the RP Act, will result in prosecution of the  

candidate. Hence, filing of affidavit with blank space will be  

directly hit by Section 125A(i) of the RP Act. However, as the  

nomination paper itself is rejected by the Returning officer,  

we  find  no  reason  why  the  candidate  must  again  be  

penalized for the same act by prosecuting him/her.  

25) If  we accept the contention raised by Union of India,  

viz.,  the  candidate  who  has  filed  an  affidavit  with  false  

information  as  well  as  the  candidate  who  has  filed  an  

affidavit with particulars left blank should be treated at par,  

22

Page 23

it will result in breach of fundamental right guaranteed under  

Article  19(1)(a)  of  the  Constitution,  viz.,  ‘right  to  know’,  

which is inclusive of freedom of speech and expression as  

interpreted  in  Association  for  Democratic  Reforms  

(supra).

26) In  succinct,  if  the  Election  Commission  accepts  the  

nomination  papers  in  spite  of  blank  particulars  in  the  

affidavits, it will directly violate the fundamental right of the  

citizen  to  know  the  criminal  antecedents,  assets  and  

liabilities  and  educational  qualification  of  the  candidate.  

Therefore, accepting affidavit with blank particulars from the  

candidate  will  rescind  the  verdict  in  Association  for  

Democratic Reforms (supra). Further, the subsequent act  

of prosecuting the candidate under Section 125A(i) will bear  

no significance as far as the breach of fundamental right of  

the citizen is concerned. For the aforesaid reasons, we are  

unable to accept the contention of the Union of India.

27) What emerges from the above discussion can be  summarized in the form of following directions:

23

Page 24

(i) The  voter  has  the  elementary  right  to  know  full  

particulars  of  a  candidate who is  to  represent  him in  the  

Parliament/Assemblies and such right to get information is  

universally  recognized.  Thus,  it  is  held  that  right  to  know  

about  the  candidate  is  a  natural  right  flowing  from  the  

concept of democracy and is an integral part of Article 19(1)

(a) of the Constitution.

(ii) The ultimate purpose of filing of affidavit along with the  

nomination paper is to effectuate the fundamental right of  

the  citizens  under  Article  19(1)(a)  of  the  Constitution  of  

India.  The  citizens  are  supposed  to  have  the  necessary  

information at the time of filing of nomination paper and for  

that purpose, the Returning Officer can very well compel a  

candidate to furnish the relevant information.

(iii) Filing of affidavit with blank particulars will render the  

affidavit nugatory.  

(iv) It is the duty of the Returning Officer to check whether  

the information required is fully furnished at the time of filing  

of affidavit with the nomination paper since such information  

24

Page 25

is  very vital  for giving effect to the ‘right to know’ of the  

citizens. If a candidate fails to fill the blanks even after the  

reminder by the Returning Officer, the nomination paper is  

fit  to  be  rejected.  We  do  comprehend  that  the  power  of  

Returning  Officer  to  reject  the  nomination  paper  must  be  

exercised very sparingly but the bar should not be laid so  

high that the justice itself is prejudiced.

(v) We  clarify  to  the  extent  that  Para  73  of  People’s  

Union for Civil Liberties case (supra)  will  not come in  

the way of  the Returning Officer  to  reject  the nomination  

paper when affidavit is filed with blank particulars.

(vi) The  candidate  must  take  the  minimum  effort  to  

explicitly remark as ‘NIL’ or ‘Not Applicable’ or ‘Not known’ in  

the columns and not to leave the particulars blank.  

(vii) Filing  of  affidavit  with  blanks  will  be  directly  hit  by  

Section 125A(i)  of the RP Act However,  as the nomination  

paper itself is rejected by the Returning Officer, we find no  

reason why the candidate must be again penalized for the  

same act by prosecuting him/her.  

25

Page 26

28)  The  Writ  Petition  is  disposed  of  with  the  above  

directions.

……….…………………………CJI.                   (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

       ………….…………………………J.                  (RANJANA PRAKASH  

DESAI)                                    

………….…………………………J.                  (RANJAN GOGOI)                                   

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 13, 2013.   

26