Content Attribution Policy


Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish
excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

• Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.

• Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down
loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our
Credits (/credits/) page.

CA S E A NA LYS I S 
Case Summary and Outcome
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, including information on their assets, criminal records, and
educational background. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to know about public officials is derived from the constitutional right to
freedom of expression.

This case analysis was contributed by Right2Info.org (http://www.right2info.org/cases/plomino_documents/r2i-union-of-india-uoi-v.-respondent-

association-for-democratic-reforms-and-another-with-peoples-union-for-civil-liberties-pucl-and-another-v.-union-of-india-uoi-and-another)

Facts
The Association for Democratic Reforms filed a petition with the High Court of Delhi to compel implementation of certain
recommendations regarding how to make the electoral process in India more fair, transparent and equitable. As requested by the
Government of India, these recommendations had been produced by the Law Commission and provided that the Election Commission
should 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.
Decision Overview
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.

DECI S I ON DI RECTI ON 

G LOBA L PERS PECTI VE 

CA S E S I G NI FI CA NCE 

OFFI CI A L CA S E DOCUM ENTS 

© 2024 Columbia Global Freedom of

University | Statement on
Expression