Union Of India(UOI) and Ors. v.

Association for Democratic Reforms and

Ors. {(2002)5SCC294}
FACTS OF THE CASE-

In the instant case, the Association of Democratic Reforms had filed a petition in the Delhi High
Court in order to pressure the authorities to implement certain recommendations regarding how
to make the process of election in India more transparent, fair and equitable. Following the
request of the government of India, these recommendations were produced by the Law
Commission and it provided that the Election Commission must require all candidates to disclose
personal background information to the public, including criminal history, educational
qualifications, personal financial details and other information necessary for judging a
candidate’s capacity and capability.

Ruling that a candidate’s background should not be kept in the dark as it is not in the interest of
democracy, the High Court of Delhi ordered the Election Commission to obtain such information
for the benefit of the voters. The Union of India challenged the decision through an appeal to the
Supreme Court of India, arguing that the Election Commission and the High Court did not have
such powers and that voters did not have a right to such information.

JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT-

The Supreme Court of India upheld a High Court order mandating the Election Commission to
obtain and disclose to the public background information relating to candidates running for
office.  The Supreme Court ruled that the right to know about public officials is derived from the
constitutional right to freedom of expression.

 it ordered the Election Commission to formulate necessary orders to require all candidates to
furnish information on the following aspects of their background: 

1. Criminal charges and convictions

2. Pending cases where the candidate is an accused

3. All assets including those of her spouse

4. All liabilities 

5. Educational qualifications

Citing Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 the Court also stated that any
information which will not be denied to the Parliament or the State Legislature should not be
denied to any person.
OVERVIEW OF THE DECISION-

The Court issued two main rulings: (1) When the legislature is silent on a particular subject and
an entity (in this case, the Election Commission) has been granted implementation authority with
respect to such subject, the Court assumes that the entity has the power to issue directions or
orders to fill such a void until a suitable law on the subject is enacted; and (2) Citizens have a
right to know about public functionaries, which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech
and expression and which includes the right to know about the backgrounds of candidates for
public office.

With regard to the first ruling, the Court confirmed that Article 324 “operates in areas
unoccupied by legislation” and that “[t]he silence of a statute has no exclusionary effect except
where it flows from necessary implication”. [p. 10-11] In other words, the Court’s power to issue
directions pursuant to Article 324 is plenary. [p. 19] By extension, the Election Commission, as
ordered by the Court, can issue suitable directions to maintain the purity and transparency of the
“entire process of election”. [pp. 13, 19]

With regard to the second ruling, the Court characterized the right to know as a right derived
from the right to freedom of speech and expression. The public has a right to know about
candidates contesting elections because such rights include the right to hold opinions and acquire
information so as to be sufficiently informed in forming and disseminating those opinions
throughout the election process. The Court advanced this point by observing that a successful
democracy strives toward an “aware citizenry” and misinformation or non-information of any
kind will create an “uniformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce”. [p. 16]

With the above decided, the Court directed the Election Commission to issue the necessary
orders to obtain from each candidate for election to Parliament or a State Legislature information
on the following aspects of their background: any criminal charges and convictions in the
candidate’s past, any pending cases in which the candidate is an accused, all assets of a candidate
including those of his or her spouse, all liabilities of a candidate, and all educational
qualifications of a candidate.