Lok Prahari vs Union of India

Facts of Lok Prahari vs Union of India

In Lok Prahari vs Union of India, the petitioner is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, consisting of retired civil servants, some of whom had held constitutional offices in the past. The case revolves around the constitutional norms governing the electoral process in India, specifically addressing the right to vote and the right to contest elections for various bodies outlined in Article 324 of the Indian Constitution.

The Constitution establishes the Election Commission for the superintendence and control of elections, with limitations imposed on the rights to vote and contest elections varying for each body. Article 326 outlines criteria for elections to the House of People and legislative assemblies, while specific age requirements for eligibility are mentioned in Articles 84(b) and 183(b) for the Parliament and state legislatures, respectively. Additionally, Articles 58, 66, 102 and 191 provide qualifications and disqualifications for various elected positions.

Issues of The Case

The issues raised in Lok Prahari vs Union of India were:

• Whether changes in Form 26 to provide specific information are necessary.
• Whether amendments to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, are needed.
• Whether non-disclosure of assets and income sources by candidates and associates constitutes corruption.
• Whether candidates must disclose information about contracts with the government or public companies.
• Whether there is an obligation to investigate the significant increase in assets of MPs and MLAs.

Contention of the Petitioner

The petitioner in Lok Prahari vs Union of India asserts the need for reforms to enhance the electoral system and fortify democratic processes.

The petitioner contends that the assets of certain Members of Parliament, State Legislature and their associates have surged by more than fivefold post-election.

Allegations are made based on data from the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), indicating a substantial increase in assets of re-elected MPs and MLAs, accessible through Form 26 on the Election Commission of India’s website and Chief Electoral Officers of States.

The petitioner in Lok Prahari vs Union of India

 further urges the Central Board of Direct Taxes to scrutinise whether the augmented assets align with increased income from known sources.

Contention of The Respondent

The respondent in Lok Prahari verssu Union of India laments the lack of attention from both Parliament and the Election Commission of India towards the identified problem.

The second respondent supports the petitioner, emphasising the obligation of every candidate to disclose their sources of income, as indicated in a counter-affidavit.

Judgement in Lok Prahari vs Union of India

The court in Lok Prahari vs Union of India has issued the following directives in response to the case:

1. The court in Lok Prahari v. Union of India ruled that Respondent No (1) & (2) are constitutionally obligated to implement the court’s directions, exercising jurisdiction within the constitutional framework.

2. The court emphasised the importance of providing information to voters, including details about the source of income and assets of candidates. This, the court held, enables voters to make informed choices and enhances transparency in the electoral process.

3. The court acknowledged that while inquiries and investigations into disproportionate increases in candidates’ assets are necessary, such scrutiny should be selective. Without a consistent and permanent monitoring mechanism for asset growth, the court deemed wide-ranging investigations as potentially politically motivated witch hunts and therefore, declined them.

4. The court in Lok Prahari vs. Union of India endorsed a suitable amendment to Rule 4A of The Conduct of Election Rules and directed the modification of Form 26 to include specific information. This amendment is deemed necessary to aid voters in making informed decisions during elections.

5. Citing Krishnamoorthy v Sivakumar & others (2015) 3 SCC 467, the court reiterated that non-disclosure of assets and sources of income by candidates and their associates constitutes a corrupt practice under “undue influence” as per Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act of 1951.

6. The court in Lok Prahari vs Union of India clarified that information regarding contracts with the government or public companies, whether by the candidate, their spouse, dependents, undivided family, partnership firm or private company, needs to be furnished. While such information is crucial for disqualification on the grounds of undue accretion of assets, there is no obligation for candidates to disclose it.

Lok Prahari vs Union of India Summary

The Lok Prahari vs Union of India case established that any member of Parliament, Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council convicted of a crime and sentenced to a minimum of two years in prison would promptly lose their membership. The Union of India, which represents the government of India, operates within the framework of a democratic, secular and sovereign republic with a parliamentary system of governance.

In this system, the President serves as the constitutional head of the executive branch at the Union level, while in the states, the Governor acts as the head of executive, representing the President. The legislative branch at the Union level is known as Parliament and comprises two Houses: the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) and the House of the People (Lok Sabha). The President and the two Houses collectively form the Union’s legislature.

It is essential for each House of Parliament to convene within six months of its preceding sitting, ensuring regular legislative sessions and the functioning of the democratic process in the country.