theoryofabrogation

Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)

⚖️ Landmark Case: Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)

📝 Summary:
This case reinforced transparency in democracy by mandating that election candidates disclose their criminal records, assets, and liabilities, as part of the right to information.


📚 Background

The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), an NGO working for electoral reform, filed a PIL demanding that voters should know about the background of candidates contesting elections.

At the time, there was no mandatory disclosure of criminal cases, assets, or education.


🧑‍⚖️ Supreme Court Verdict

The Court ruled decisively in favor of transparency.

  1. Right to know = Fundamental Right
    The right to information about public figures is part of freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)).

  2. Mandatory disclosures before elections
    Candidates must file affidavits disclosing:

    • Criminal antecedents (convictions & pending cases)

    • Assets and liabilities

    • Educational qualifications

  3. Public has a right to make informed choices
    Voters cannot be kept in the dark—democracy depends on awareness.


🧠 Significance

  • Pioneered electoral transparency in India.

  • Boosted efforts to clean up politics.

  • Supported later reforms like NOTA and political funding disclosures.

Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *