Absence of Videography Alone Not Sufficient For Bail When Custody is Less Than a Year: Delhi High Court Refuses Bail in Commercial Quantity Heroin Use of Permitted Synthetic Colour in Dal Masur Still Constitutes Adulteration: Punjab & Haryana High Court Uphold Conviction Penalty Must Not Result in Civil Death of Professionals: Delhi High Court Reduces Two-Year Suspension of Insolvency Professional, Citing Disproportionate Punishment Right of Cross-Examination is Statutory, Cannot Be Denied When Documents Are Exhibited Later: Chhattisgarh High Court Allows Re-Cross-Examination Compounding after Adjudication is Impermissible under FEMA: Calcutta High Court Declines Post-Adjudication Compounding Plea Tears of a Child Speak Louder Than Words: Bombay HC Confirms Life Term for Man Who Raped 4-Year-Old Alleged Dowry Death After Forced Remarriage: Allahabad High Court Finds No Evidence of Strangulation or Demand “Even If Executant Has No Title, Registrar Must Register the Document If Formalities Are Met” — Supreme Court  Declares Tamil Nadu's Rule 55A(i) Ultra Vires the Registration Act, 1908 Res Judicata Is Not Optional – It’s Public Policy: Supreme Court Slams SEBI for Passing Second Final Order in Fraud Case Against Vital Communications Ltd A Person Has Died… Insurance Company Cannot Escape Liability Without Proving Policy Violation: Supreme Court Slams High Court for Exonerating Insurer in Fatal Accident Case Calling Someone by Caste Name Is Not Enough – It Must Be Publicly Done to Attract SC/ST Act: Supreme Court Acquits All in Jharkhand Land Dispute Case Broken Promises Don’t Make Rape – Mature Adults in Long-Term Relationships Must Accept Responsibility: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against NRI Man Every Broken Relationship Can’t Be Branded Rape: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Retired Judge Accused of Sexual Exploitation on Promise of Marriage No Evidence, No Motive, Not Even Proof of Murder: Supreme Court Slams Conviction, Acquits Man Accused of Killing Wife After Two Years of Marriage You Can’t Assume Silence Is Consent: Supreme Court Sends Back ₹46 Lakh Insurance Dispute to NCDRC for Fresh Determination “Voyage Must Start and End Before Monsoon Sets In — But What If That’s Practically Impossible?” SC Rules Against Insurance Company in Shipping Dispute No Criminal Case Can Be Built on a Land Deal That’s Three Decades Old Without Specific Allegations: Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of FIR Against Ex-JK Housing Chief Just Giving a Call for Protest Doesn’t Make One Criminally Liable - Rail Roko Protest Quashed Against KCR Ex-CM: Telangana High Court Ends 13-Year-Old Proceedings for 2011 Telangana Agitation This Is Not a Case of Greed Simplicitor but a Celebration of Fraud: Karnataka High Court Grants Specific Performance, Slams Vendor for Violating Court Orders Limitation Period Under Section 18-A of Rent Act Mandatory, Delay Not Condonable – Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NRI Landlord's Eviction Against Tenant Custom Department Cannot Revive Time-Barred Show Cause Notices After Seven Years Without Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Notices to JBS Exports Public Property Cannot Be Managed Privately for Decades — Fair Price Shops in Hospitals Must Be Allotted by Auction: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Registered Sale Deed Alone Does Not Dismantle Prior Security Interest: Gauhati High Court Rejects Buyer’s Writ Against SARFAESI Action, Cites Expanded Statutory Definition Old OBC Certificates Won’t Work — Supreme Court Says Cut-Off Date Is Final in Rajasthan Civil Judge Exams

Landmark Judgement Upholds Voters' Right to Know: Non-Disclosure of Criminal Cases by Candidates Under Scrutiny

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 24 July 2023, In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India upheld the crucial right of voters to be informed about the background of election candidates. The judgement, delivered by the bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, examined the contentious issue of non-disclosure of criminal cases by candidates during elections.

The case revolved around an election petitioner's contention that the appellant, a candidate in an election, had failed to disclose pending criminal cases against him, thereby violating the provisions of the relevant Act. The petitioner argued that the candidate's non-disclosure of past convictions under the Minimum Wages Act and the Payment of Wages Act further compounded the alleged violations.

The court delved into the interpretation of Section 33A of the relevant Act, which dictates the requirement of disclosure in certain cases. The appellant defended his non-disclosure, stating that the Act mandated disclosure only for specific classes of offenses, which did not encompass the pending cases in question.

To address the matter, the court carefully examined the records of the pending criminal case related to offenses under the Indian Forest Act. The examination revealed that the appellant had not been charged for the alleged offenses, as claimed by the petitioner, thus providing a critical insight into the validity of the allegations.

The bench emphasized that the rejection of an election petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC should not be partial, and any consideration of the petition's merits must occur during a full trial. The court underscored the importance of a comprehensive trial to assess the cumulative impact of the non-disclosure allegations and non-compliance with statutory regulations.

"In view of the right to vote being a constitutional right and an essential feature of democracy, voters have the right to know a candidate's full background," the court stated, affirming the sanctity of an informed electorate.

The judgement further highlighted the discretionary nature of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, emphasizing that judgments on admissions must be based on clear and unambiguous admissions. The court cautioned against denying a defendant's right to contest the claim without adequate evidence.

The bench ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the impugned judgment that the case required a full trial to ascertain the implications of the non-disclosure allegations.

As democracy stands on the foundation of an informed citizenry, this landmark judgement solidifies the voters' right to be fully informed about candidates' criminal records, allowing them to exercise their right to vote with greater awareness and accountability.                                                                                  

Date of Decision: July 24, 2023

BHIM RAO BASWANTH RAO PATIL  vs  K. MADAN MOHAN RAO & ORS

Similar News