Source: https://mynation.net/judgments/public-interest-foundation-vs-union-of-india-on-25-september-2018/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 12:29:10+00:00

Document:
level of criminalization that has been creeping into the Indian polity.
those who are nothing but a liability to our country.
that the controversy was covered by the decision in Manoj Narula v.
the view expressed by Madan B. Lokur, J. in his separate judgment.
advert to the said submission at a later stage.
Minister either for the Union or for such State.
norms of good governance get condignly fructified.
He had also, in his opinion, reproduced the words of Dr. B.R.
sentiments echoed by Dr. Rajendra Prasad on 26.11.1949. Dr.
Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar and Mr T.T.
made by the Parliament. Article 191 has the same character.
Assembly or Legislative Council of a State.
period of six years since his release.
further period of six years since his release.
the unexpired portion of the said period.
state, the legislature is absolutely specific.
dominated by people with criminal records.
and it is merely a restriction which is distinctively civil in nature.
footing amounts to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
turn, legislated in the imperative.
to 10A of the Act. It is clear as noon day and there is no ambiguity.
for any new ground to be added or introduced.
whose members are men and women of high integrity and morality.
This could be said to be the hallmark of any free and fair democracy.
candidates; form the core of our electoral problems.
criminal network which was virtually running a parallel government.
politicians and expansion of activities with impunity.
lawmakers and moving around under police protection.
increasingly being felt on various aspects of social life in India.
31. In Anukul Chandra Pradhan, Advocate Supreme Court v.
welcomed and upheld as subserving the constitutional purpose.
intrinsically, as being a legitimate expression of popular will.
such observations made in the previous report.
thereby making its remediation an urgent need.
report which was also quoted in Subhash Chandra Agarwal v.
Assemblies are found in Articles 173 and 191.
operate from the date of taking cognizance till the date of acquittal.
charge-sheet or any connected material.
disqualified due to the charges filed.
Commission referred to the observations in Union of India v.
shape of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
of such framing may disqualify the candidate.
several legal options available to him prior to this stage.
which would have made such disqualification redundant.
least be disqualified from contesting in one election.
framing of charge or acquittal whichever is earlier.
of judicial mind at this stage.
curbing the spread of criminalisation of politics.
election will not lead to disqualification.
suspended at the expiry of the one-year period.
irrespective of when the charge was framed.
Section 8(1) of the RPA.
as a corrupt practice under S. 123 of the RPA.
by not encouraging candidates with criminal antecedents.
to in this Constitution as the Election Commission).
as the Chairman of the Election Commission.
power under the constitutional framework.
63. In Election Commission of India and another. v. Dr.
settled by this Court’s decision in Brundaban v.
the final order would be based solely on that opinion.
and in this view it also assumes the role of an adviser.
statistical data which reinstates this fact.
is, thus, antithetical to the Rule of Law.
candidate from contesting with the symbol of the political party.
Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare and others19.
the Representation of the People Act.
Order would also result in doing indirectly what is clearly prohibited.
Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh and another20 and M.C. Mehta v.
which is clear and unambiguous.
consequences cannot ensue merely on the basis of charge.
law for the purpose of Article 19(l)(c).
have serious impact on the privacy of the said member.
84. Relying upon the decisions in Union of India and another v.
Deoki Nandan Aggarwal25 and Supreme Court Bar Association v.
different symbols shall be allotted to different contesting candidates.
this Order symbols are either reserved or free.
contesting candidates set up by that party.
contesting candidates set up by such political party.
conditions for recognition of state and national parties, respectively.
Parliament as well as the Assembly constituencies.
contest elections under the symbol reserved for such national party.
constituency other than a candidate set up by a national party.
well-accepted principle in the Indian judiciary.
principle has been discussed elaborately.
not at all.‖ Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.
102. Similarly, in State through. P.S. Lodhi Colony New Delhi v.
court is bound to act within the four corners thereof.
democracy that is based on multi-party system is likely to be dented.
provided under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.
defeats the fairness ingrained in an indirect election.
the Court cannot make the law.
of constitutional ethos cannot usurp the power which it does not have.
information which includes freedom to hold opinions.
though, to a certain extent, there may be overlapping.
(3) The directives given by this Court in Union of India v.
information now provided for is deficient and inadequate.
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution viz.
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
when affidavit is filed with blank particulars.
about the antecedents. Their right to have information suffers.
contain all the particulars as required therein.
criminal cases pending against the candidate.
about the criminal cases pending against him/her.
to candidates having criminal antecedents.
cornerstone to have a pure and strong democracy.
becomes fatal to democracy. Thus, we part.

References: v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.