Facts
- The plaintiff, Bhim Rao Baswanth Patil was an elected candidate in the Lok Sabha elections from the Zaheerabad Parliamentary Constituency. He won by a 6229 vote margin.
- The respondent, Madan Mohan Rao filled an election petition under Sections 81 and 84 read with Sections 100(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii) & (iv) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
- The election petition claimed that Bhim Rao failed to disclose true information about himself and thus has gave false information. In Form 26 where he had to disclose if there were any pending cases against him, Bhim Rao wrote ‘not Applicable’, therein hiding true information.
- The election petition also alleged that Returning Officer had failed to follow the Guidelines issued by the Election Commission. There was no publication of the criminal proceeding or previous convictions in the local newspaper of the constituency.
- The appellant filed for rejection of this election petition under Oder VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He claimed that disclosing the so called criminal cases was not required as they did not fall under section 8 and Section 33A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 since he had not been sentenced to jail for more than a year.
- The High Court of Telangana refused to dismiss the election petition, leading to the plaintiff appealing in the Apex Court.
Issue
- Whether the High Court of Telangana was correct in rejecting the plea to dismiss the election petition?
- Whether the right to vote is a fundamental right in India?
Contentions
Plaintiff’s Arguments:
- The pending criminal cases are under Minimum Wages Act and Payment of Wages Act, making no sense to be disclosed here.
- He argued that even if he is convicted in the above-mentioned proceedings, the maximum punishment is monetary penalty and not disqualification from elections as under Section 33A of Representation of People Act, 1951.
Defendant’s Arguments:
- The counsel on behalf of the defendant was very satisfied with the High Court’s order of rejecting the election petition.
- The plaintiff had not disclosed pending cases going on in the Chief Magistrate Garwah’s Court relating to Forest Department.
- In cases where the plaintiff was convicted, there was an active effort to hide the truth. He had indicated ‘not applicable’ where questioned whether he was convicted before even though there were two cases namely, case no. 20/2012 Labour case and case no. 1/2013 both under the Payment of Wages and Minimum Wages Act.
Rationale
In its ruling, the Supreme Court highlighted the voter’s right to be fully informed regarding the backgrounds of electoral candidates, emphasizing transparency as essential for making informed voting decisions.
The court took into consideration two important sections of the Representation of People Act, 1951. Firstly; Section 8 which talks about elimination of the elected campaigner upon conviction of specified offences. Secondly; Section 33A which asks the candidate to disclose any criminal proceedings or convictions if any.
The court noted that Bhim Rao Baswanth Patil (BB Patil) did not deny the allegations against him but contended that the offenses were minor and did not warrant disclosure. Furthermore, BB Patil was found to have not adhered to additional guidelines set by the Election Commission regarding the disclosure of criminal proceedings.
Given the nature of these allegations and the need for a thorough examination of the facts, the court determined that a summary dismissal of the election petition was inappropriate. Instead, it ruled that these issues warranted a full trial to ensure all facts were accurately assessed and justice was served, underscoring the necessity of compliance with electoral laws and regulations to maintain the integrity of democratic processes.
A Division bench comprising of Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar held that “voter’s right to know about the full background of a candidate- evolved through court decisions- is an added dimension to the rich tapestry of our constitutional jurisprudence.”
It also put forth an alternative scenario where the appeal was rejected and its implications. It would mean refusal of a complete and proper trial with the acceptance that no facts were hidden. This is clearly not true also there are many allegations on the plaintiff which cannot be decided without a trial.
Thus, the Appellate Court upheld the High Court’s ruling, that the appeal had no merit and accordingly dismissed it.
Defects of Law
India is a democratic country, providing the citizens with the right to vote based on an informed choice. Our freedom fighters though long gone, have fought for us, for Swaraj, where the citizen’s right to exercise their franchise is unalienable. Our constitution provides Indians with the right to vote without being discriminated against on any grounds be it, religion, race, caste or sex.
The court also said that “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 recognized as a Fundamental Right yet; it was termed as a “mere” statutory right.”
Democracy fundamentally relies on the participation of citizens in the governance process, primarily through voting. This makes the act of voting a cornerstone of democratic function. It is rather peculiar, that electoral rights of citizens are relatively susceptible because they are not considered fundamental rights and can be more readily subjected to legislative modifications than fundamental rights. Even though democracy is the foundational idea, the means by which citizens engage in the process is not given the due constitutional protection. This recognition calls for strengthening legal safeguards around the right to vote to ensure that it can maintain its fundamental role in a democratic society without being diminished by changes in statutory law.
Inference
The right to poll is recognised as a statutory right rather than a basic one, which the court recognises is somewhat paradoxical given that democracy is an essential characteristic of the Indian Constitution. The court suggests that an informed electorate is essential to the smooth operation of democracy by highlighting the voters’ right to information. The decision implies that maintaining the democratic process depends on making sure voters have access to accurate and comprehensive information about candidates. The judgement in the case of Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v K. Madan Mohan Rao & Ors shows that India gives priority to its citizens. The election petition could have been dismissed in the summary proceeding, but the Court found it of utmost importance to not blindside the voters, even if the non-disclosure is very minor and irrelevant. In summary, this case highlights the judiciary’s role in defending the essence of democracy by guaranteeing transparency and informed voter choice, in addition to interpreting the rules that regulate election procedures.
Prachi Agarwal
O.P. Jindal Global University