Supreme Court of India
RAMBABU SINGH THAKUR versus SUNIL ARORA & ORS. on 13 February 2020
RAMBABU SINGH THAKUR
v.
SUNIL ARORA & ORS.
(Contempt Pet. (C) No. 2192 of 2018)
In
(W.P. (C) No. 536 of 2011)
FEBRUARY 13, 2020
[R. F. NARIMAN AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Election Laws: Criminalisation of politics in India – In *PublicInterest Foundation and Ors. v. Union of India, this Court had issuedcertain directions observing the increasing criminalisation of politicsin India and a lack of information about such criminalisationamongst the citizenry – In the instant case, documents placed onrecord showed an alarming increase in the incidence of criminalsin politics over the last four general elections – No explanationoffered by the political parties regarding pending criminal casesagainst their candidates – Therefore, in exercise of constitutionalpowers under Arts.129 and 142, directions passed making itmandatory for political parties to upload on their website detailedinformation regarding individuals with pending criminal cases whohave been selected as candidates along with reason for suchselection – The reasons as to selection should be with reference tothe qualifications, achievements and merit of the candidateconcerned, and not mere “winnability” at the polls – Suchinformation is to be also published in national and one localvernacular newspaper and on the official social media platformsof the political party, including Facebook and Twitter – These detailsshall be published within 48 hours of the selection of the candidateor not less than two weeks before the first date for filing ofnominations, whichever is earlier – The political party concernedshould then submit a report of compliance with these directions withthe Election Commission within 72 hours of the selection of the saidcandidate – If a political party fails to submit such compliance reportwith the Election Commission, the Election Commission shall bringsuch non-compliance by the political party concerned to the noticeof the Supreme Court as being in contempt of this Court’s orders/
925
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Adirections – Contempt petitions disposed of – Constitution of India– Arts.129 and 142.
*Public Interest Foundation and Ors. v. Union of India (2019)3 SCC 224 – relied on Case Law Reference B(2019) 3 SCC 224relied onPara 1
INHERENT JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition (C) No. 2192of 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 536 of 2011.
Petition filed for non-compliance of the Judgment dated 25.09.2018Cpassed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 536 of 2011.
With
Contempt Petition (C) No. 428/2019 in W.P. (C) No. 536/2011
Contempt Petition (C) No. 464/2019 in W.P. (C) No. 536/2011D
Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv., Ashwani Kumar Dubey andSandeep Kumar Mishra, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Vikash Singh, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Sr. Advs., Amit Sharma,Dipesh Sinha, Ms. Ayiala Imti, Ms. Deepika Kalia, Satwik Misra, Ms.Shradha Deshmukh, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Ms. Sugandha Anand andEKabir Dixit, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. F. NARIMAN, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. This contempt petition raises grave issues regarding theFcriminalisation of politics in India and brings to our attention a disregardof the directions of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Public InterestFoundation and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. (2019) 3 SCC 224.
2. In this judgment, this Court was cognisant of the increasingcriminalisation of politics in India and the lack of information about suchGcriminalisation amongst the citizenry. In order to remedy this informationgap, this Court issued the following directions:
“116. Keeping the aforesaid in view, we think it appropriate toissue the following directions which are in accord with the decisionsof this Court:
H
116.1. Each contesting candidate shall fill up the form as providedby the Election Commission and the form must contain all theparticulars as required therein.
116.2. It shall state, in bold letters, with regard to the criminalcases pending against the candidate.
116.3. If a candidate is contesting an election on the ticket of aparticular party, he/she is required to inform the party about thecriminal cases pending against him/her.
116.4. The political party concerned shall be obligated to put upon its website the aforesaid information pertaining to candidateshaving criminal antecedents.
116.5. The candidate as well as the political party concerned shallissue a declaration in the widely circulated newspapers in thelocality about the antecedents of the candidate and also give widepublicity in the electronic media. When we say wide publicity, wemean that the same shall be done at least thrice after filing of thenomination papers.”
3. On a perusal of the documents placed on record and aftersubmissions of counsel, it appears that over the last four general elections,there has been an alarming increase in the incidence of criminals inpolitics. In 2004, 24% of the Members of Parliament had criminal casespending against them; in 2009, that went up to 30%; in 2014 to 34%; andin 2019 as many as 43% of MPshad criminal cases pending againstthem.
4. We have also noted that the political parties offer no explanationas to why candidates with pending criminal cases are selected ascandidates in the first place. We therefore issue the following directionsin exercise of our constitutional powers under Articles 129 and 142 ofthe Constitution of India:
1) It shall be mandatoryfor political parties [at the Central andState electionlevel] to upload on their website detailedinformation regardingindividuals with pending criminal cases(including the nature of the offences, and relevant particularssuch as whether charges have been framed, the concernedCourt, the case number etc.) who have been selected ascandidates, along with the reasons for such selection, as also A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
928SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Aas to whyother individuals without criminal antecedents couldnot be selected as candidates.
2) The reasons as to selection shall be with reference to thequalifications, achievements and merit of the candidateconcerned, and not mere “winnability” at the polls.
B
3) This information shall also be published in:
(a) One local vernacular newspaper and one nationalnewspaper; (b) On the official social media platforms of the political party,Cincluding Facebook & Twitter.
4) These details shall be published within 48 hours of the selectionof the candidate or not less than two weeks before the firstdate for filing of nominations, whichever is earlier.
5) The political party concerned shall then submit a report ofDcompliance with these directions with the Election Commissionwithin 72 hours of the selection of the said candidate.
6) If a political party fails to submit such compliance report withthe Election Commission, the Election Commission shall bringsuch non-compliance by the political party concerned to theEnotice of the Supreme Court as being in contempt of this Court’sorders/directions.
5. With these directions, these Contempt Petitions are accordinglydisposed of.
F
Devika Gujral
Contempt Petitions disposed of.
G
H