1) ADR's plea in SC to bring Political Parties under RTI Supreme Court
Urging the Supreme Court to declare all the national and regional political parties as "public authorities" and bring them within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and RTI activist Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal filed a petition in the Apex Court on 19th May 2015. The first hearing in the case took place on 7th July 2015 wherein the Apex Court admitted the plea and sought responses from all the national political parties, Election Commission and the Central government within six-week. To its counter, Government of India had filed its affidavit stating that they do not come under RTI Act. Central Information Commission (CIC), on June 3, 2013, had declared six national political parties, namely the INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP to be “public authorities” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, on a complaint filed by ADR and Mr. Agrawal but none of the parties complied with the order. Ultimately on 16th March 2015, the CIC said that the RTI Act does not provide the Commission with ample powers to deal with the cases of contempt and non-compliance.
Next date of hearing: Matter is likely to be listed on 19th April, 2024.
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
19th May 2015 |
|
|
21st August 2015 |
|
|
27th February 2016 |
2) ADR's petition challenging amendments to FCRA,1976 and 2010 Supreme Court
ADR's petition challenges the amendments made with retrospective effect in the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 through the Finance Act, 2016 and Finance Act, 2018, which was passed as a Money Bill.These amendments were seen as an attempt to overturn the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in March 2014 holding the two major political parties, BJP and INC, guilty of accepting foreign funding. The Delhi High Court ordered the Central Government and Election Commission of India to take action against BJP and INC within six months.These amendments to the FCRA law have opened doors to unlimited political donations from foreign companies and also legitimizing financial contributions received from foreign sources. The petition was necessitated due to the intransigence of the Central Government in complying with the Delhi HC order of March 2014 and instead trying to get BJP and INC off the hook by amending the FCRA 2010 in 2016 and subsequently the FCRA 1976 in March 2018.
Next date of hearing: Matter is likely to be listed on 09th April, 2024.
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
April 2018 |
3) W.P (C) No. 1382/2019: Petition on voter discrepancies and mechanism of declaration of election result Supreme Court
On 4th November, 2019, Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Common Cause filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India to seek directions from the Supreme Court to order the Election Commission of India to completely stop the practice of announcing election results based on provisional and estimated data, prior to an actual and accurate reconciliation of data. Even for Lok Sabha 2019 Elections, the Election Commission had announced election results in all constituencies on 23rd May 2019, based on estimated data. This is verified by Election Commission’s Press Note dated 01 June 2019 that stated “…the final data on votes counted has been made available within a few days of declaration of results……”
In addition, ADR also seeks a direction from Supreme Court to the ECI to evolve an efficient, transparent, rational and robust procedure/mechanism by creating a separate department/grievance cell for investigation of discrepancies in election data and for responding to the elector’s queries on the same. Through this petition, ADR is not challenging or questioning the final result of 2019 General Elections or the election process in the country. However, the issues and irregularities that arose in the conduct of the election/result of 2019 General Elections have been cited as arguments for effectuating free and fair elections, the survival of democracy and enforcement of fundamental rights. Based on our petition, on 13th December, 2019, the Supreme Court of India had issued notices to the Election Commission of India and Union of India.
Current Status of the matter:
On 27th February, 2020 an application was filed against the ‘mysterious rush and urgency’ shown by the Election Commission of India by destroying the VVPAT slips used in 2019 Lok Sabha elections in just four months after the results were declared. This was in contravention of the rules prescribed under the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Rule 94 (b) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 states that, “the used or printed slips in any election shall be retained for one year from the date of declaration of the results of the election. and shall thereafter be destroyed. ADR’s petition has been pending in the Supreme Court since November, 2019. Therefore, an application in the Supreme Court to direct the Election Commission of India to;
- On 27th February, 2020 ADR filed an application in the Supreme Court to direct the Election Commission of India to;
- Not to destroy or dispose of VVPAT paper slips generated in any election in the last one year and to retain the same at least for a period of one year in consonance with the rules of Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961;
- To retain all other documents pertaining to the 17th Lok Sabha elections held in April, 2019.
Next date of hearing: Matter is likely to be listed on 17th May, 2024.
Related News
EVM Vote Count Mismatch In 370+ Seats and EC Refuses to Explain (The Quint)
ECI Has Forgotten Elections Aren't Just About Parties – They're About the People (The Wire)
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
November 2019 |
|
|
November 2019 |
|
|
Application filed in the Supreme Court against disposal of VVPAT slips |
27th February 2020 |
|
Counter affidavit filed by Election Commission of India (ECI) |
01st November 2021 |
|
Application for disclosure of authentic records of voter turn out data |
04th May 2024 |
4) Petition challenging Constitutional validity of The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 Supreme Court
On 6th January,2024, ADR filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Constitutional validity of ‘The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023’ on the grounds that the new law not only undermines the independence of the Election Commission but also overruled the aforementioned directions of the court where the Chief Justice of India was removed from the appointment process and instead a Cabinet Minister (to be nominated by the Prime Minister) was added thereby creating a system entirely dominated by executive.
Next date of hearing: Matter is likely to be listed on 05th August, 2024.
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
06th January 2024 |
1) Disclosure of Candidate Background (Criminal, Educational & Financial) to Election Commission Supreme Court
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by ADR in December 1999 culminated into a landmark Supreme Court Judgment on May 2, 2002 and an ordinance on Electoral Reforms promulgated in August 2002. The Ordinance was subsequently passed as a Bill in December 2002. It partially overturned the May 2, 2002 Supreme Court Judgment, requiring disclosure of criminal background, but not of financial and educational background. ADR and two other petitioners challenged this Act. The Supreme Court, in a second landmark Judgment on March 13, 2003, struck down the Bill as unconstitutional and restored its earlier order. Subsequently, the Election Commission issued orders implementing the following judgments:
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
Delhi High Court's Judgment. AIR(2001) Delhi 126,2000 SCC Online DEL 836 |
2nd November 2000 |
|
Supreme Court's Judgment. (2002) 5 SCC 294,AIR 2002 SC 2112 |
2nd May 2002 |
|
Supreme Court's Judgment.AIR 2003 SC 2363,(2003)2 SCR 1136,MANU/SC/0234/2003 |
13th March 2003 |
2) The Supreme Court's Judgment on NOTA Supreme Court
None of the Above Button (NOTA) on Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs): On 27th September, 2013, the Supreme Court of India in People’s Union for Civil Liberties Vs. UOI & Ors; 2013 (10) SCC 1 ordered inclusion of NOTA buttons on the EVMs so that the voters, who come to the polling booth and decide not to vote for any of the candidates in the fray, are able to exercise their right not to vote while maintaining their right of secrecy. The NOTA button was inserted in the EVM machines first time during 2013 Assembly elections held in five states -Chhattisgarh, Mizoram, Rajasthan, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh and in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. The NOTA option gives the voter the right to express his/her disapproval with the kind of candidates that are being put up by the political parties, thereby forcing the political parties to accept the will of the people and field candidates who are known for their integrity.
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
27th September 2013 |
3) Disqualification of Convicted MPs/MLAs Supreme Court
On a petition filed by Lily Thomas and Lok Prahari NGO, where ADR also intervened, the Supreme Court stated that if a sitting MP/MLA is convicted (not only charged) then he/ she would be disqualified immediately and the seat would be declared as vacant, setting aside the Clause 8(4) of the Representation of People Act. The Clause 8(4) had provided special privilege to MPs/MLAs to hold the office even after conviction if an appeal has been filed in a higher court within the span of 3 months.
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
Supreme Court's Judgment. (2013) 7 SCC 653, (2013) 3 SCC (Civ.) 678, (2013) 3 SCC (Cri.) 641 |
10th July 2013 |
4) Foreign Funding Taken By BJP and INC Delhi High Court
ADR's petition resulted in a landmark judgment from the Delhi HC which held BJP and Congress guilty of taking foreign funding and violating the provisions of FCRA and directed the Home Ministry and ECI to take action against the two parties within six months. Both INC and BJP had separately appealed against this Delhi HC order in the SC, however, the SC while accepting the appeal refused to grant stay over Delhi HC order. On 29th November 2016, the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) filed by BJP and INC were dismissed as withdrawn by the Supreme Court.
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
2014 |
|
|
Delhi High Court Judgment. 2014 SCC Online Del 1321, (2014) 209 DLT 607 |
28th March 2014 |
|
29th November 2016 |
|
|
21st March 2017 |
|
5) Ashok Shankarao Chavan vs. Madhao Rao Kindhalkar and Others: The Alleged Paid News Case Delhi High Court
This case relates to complaints against former Maharashtra CM Ashok Chavan for publication of news items, advertisements and filing inaccurate election expenditure statements during 2009 Maharashtra Assembly elections. In the matter on May 5, 2014, the Supreme court had passed a judgment holding that ECI has powers to disqualify a candidate in relation to filing of false election expenditure statement under Section 10A. ADR had also intervened in the case. Afterwards, the Apex court had ordered ECI to conduct an enquiry under Rule 89(4) of Conduct of Election Rules and decide the matter within 45 days. Consequently, ECI had passed an order on July 13, 2014 and also issued a show cause notice to Mr. Chavan. As a result, Ashok Chavan filed an appeal in Delhi High court on July 25, 2014 against the show cause notice. Based on the appeal, Delhi High court had imposed a stay order on ECI's said order on July 28, 2014. That stay order was then challenged in the SC. The SC did not entertain the plea stating that the question of law involved in the current appeal was not dealt by the Supreme Court in the previous matter and it ordered Delhi High court to dispose off the matter within 15 days.
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
2014 |
|
|
Delhi High Court Judgment (Single Bench). (2014) 7 SCC 99 |
28th July 2014 |
|
5th May 2014 |
6) Supreme Court in the matter of Satish Ukey vs. Devendra Gangadharrao Fadnavis & ANR Supreme Court
ADR had filed an intervention application in the Supreme Court in an SLP in the matter of Satish Ukey vs. Devendra Gangadharrao Fadnavis SLP (Crl.) 19-20/2018. This matter dealt with concealment of information by Maharashtra C.M. Devendra Fadnavis in his affidavit during the Maharashtra State Assembly elections, 2014. In his affidavit, he had not mentioned the information regarding two criminal cases prescribing punishment of more than two years and where cognizance was taken by the court. ADR had intervened in the matter since the matter is pertaining to furnishing of information in the affidavits by candidates at the time of election and ADR was the original party in the 2000, 2002 and 2003 affidavit judgments.
Supreme Court Judgment: Relevant points of the SC judgment dated 1st October, 2019
- For maintaining purity of elections and healthy democracy, voters are required to be educated and well informed about the contesting candidates. There is no necessity of suppressing the relevant facts from the voters.
- Under Section 33-A(1) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, cases in which cognizance has been taken by the court was not added, despite 2002 & 2003 SC ruling.
- Mr Devendra Gangadharrao Fadnavis missed out on giving details of two cases where court has taken the cognizance.
- Section 33-A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and Rule 4-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and Form-26 make it amply clear that the information to be furnished also includes cases where cognizance has been taken by the court.
- Details of all pending cases in which cognizance has been taken by the Court, irrespective of the quantum of punishment or framing of charges will have to be disclosed by the candidate.
- Under Section 125A, furnishing of any false information or concealing of information in the affidavit in Form 26 is an electoral offence punishable with imprisonment upto six months, or with fine or both.
- Order of the High Court as well as trial court is not legally tenable and the same deserves to be set aside.
- The complaint of the appellant will be considered afresh by the learned trial Court.
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
2019 |
|
|
1st October,2019 |
7) Supreme Court in the matter of Lok Prahari vs. Union of India and others Supreme Court
Matter related to disproportionate assets of the elected representatives and a mechanism to cross- verify their assets in the affidavits.
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
2015 |
|
|
SC Judgment in Lok Prahari vs. Union of India and Ors. W.P (C) 784/2015 |
16th February 2018 |
8) Petition challenging the constitutional validity of the practice of appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners by Executive Supreme Court
A five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar in a petition filed by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) gave a landmark judgment directing the appointment of Members of Election Commission to be done on the advice of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India and the Leader of Opposition (or the leader of single largest opposition party) in the Lok Sabha.
The bench stated that there is lacuna in law relating to the appointment process of Members of Election Commission and, therefore, “any process that seeks to improve the election process before this Court must be considered”.
Press Release: Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms versus Union of India & ANR. | WP(c) 569/2021
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
2021 |
|
|
2nd March 2023 |
9) Petition challenging Finance Act, 2017; Electoral Bonds and Removal of company's limit to donate: W.P (C) 880/2017 Supreme Court
On 15th February 2024, A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Justices Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra in a petition filed by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has given a landmark judgment holding the anonymous, unregulated and unlimited funding through electoral bonds and companies as unconstitutional. The court relied on the fact that such a system of political funding which is completely anonymous, unchecked and unlimited goes against the basic principles of citizen’s Right to know under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and free and fair election and therefore the amendments brought through the Finance Act,2017 and passed as Money bill to Section 29C of RP Act,1951, Sections 181 & 183(3) of the Companies Act,2013, Section 13A(b) of the Income Tax Act,1961 were struck down as being violative of the Constitution. The court observed the principle that the citizens have a duty to hold the government of the day accountable for their actions and inactions, and they can effectively fulfil this duty only if the government is open and not clothed in secrecy.
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
2019 |
|
|
Supreme Court Judgment NEW!! |
15th February 2024 |
10) Contempt Petition against State Bank of India in the Electoral Bonds Matter Supreme Court
On 11th March 2024, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Justices Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra rejected SBI's request seeking an extension of time for the disclosure of details of the purchase and redemption of Electoral Bonds until 30-06-2024. The application was filed by SBI on 04-03-2024 two days before the expiry of the deadline seeking an extension of time until 30-06-2024. The Bench directed SBI to disclose these details by 12th March, 2024. The Bench also directed the Election Commission to compile and publish this information on its official website no later than by 5 PM on 15-03-24. In addition, the SBI was directed to file an affidavit of compliance through its chairman and managing director.
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
04th March 2024 |
|
|
07th March 2024 |
|
|
11th March 2024 |
11) Petition seeking direction for the counting of 100% VVPATs in all EVMs, W.P 434/2023 Supreme Court
On 26th April 2024, a two judges bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Dutta refused ADR's prayer for counting of 100% VVPATs in all EVMs. However, to strengthen the integrity of electoral process following directions were issued by the Bench:
- On completion of the symbol loading process in the VVPATs undertaken on or after 01.05.2024, the symbol loading units shall be sealed and secured in a container. The candidates or their representatives shall sign the seal. The sealed containers, containing the symbol loading units, shall be kept in the strong room along with the EVMs at least for a period of 45 days post the declaration of results. They shall be opened, examined and dealt with as in the case of EVMs.
- The burnt memory/microcontroller in 5% of the EVMs, that is, the control unit, ballot unit and the VVPAT, per assembly constituency/assembly segment of a parliamentary constituency shall be checked and verified by the team of engineers from the manufacturers of the EVMs, post the announcement of the results, for any tampering or modification, on a written request made by candidates who are at SI.No.2 or Sl.No.3, behind the highest polled candidate. Such candidates or their representatives shall identify the EVMs by the polling station or serial number. All the candidates and their representatives shall have an option to remain present at the time of verification. Such a request should be made within a period of 7 days from the date of declaration of the result. The District Election Officer, in consultation with the team of engineers, shall certify the authenticity/intactness of the burnt memory/ microcontroller after the verification process is conducted. The actual cost or expenses for the said verification will be notified by the ECI, and the candidate making the said request will pay for such expenses. The expenses will be refunded, in case the EVM is found to be tampered.
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
26th April 2024 |
1) Sh. Nand Ram Bagri Vs. Sh Jai Kishan & ORS. : Justice Endlaw judgment on election petition filed in the Delhi High Court( EL. PET. 14/2009 )
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
7th May 2013 |
2) S. Subramaniam Balaji Vs. The Government Of Tamil Nadu & Ors. : (2013) 9 SCC659 : Guidelines for election manifesto
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
5th July 2013 |
3) Moti Lal Yadav Vs. Election Commission Of India & Ors. : Caste Based Rallies ( MISC. BENCH No. - 5889 of 2013 )
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
11th July 2013 |
4) Resurgence India Vs. Election Commission OF India : 2014 AIR (SC) 344 : Rejection of nomination papers in case of blank affidavits
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
13th September 2013 |
5) Public Interest foundation & Ors. Vs. Union Of India & Anr. : W P(CIVIL) NO. 536 OF 2011
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
Supreme Court Daily Order (Trial of MPs and MLAs within one year) |
10th March 2014 |
|
Supreme Court's Judgment (Publication of criminal cases against candidates selected by political parties) |
25th September 2018 |
|
SC judgment in the matter of Brajesh Singh vs. Sunil Arora & Ors. |
10th August 2021 |
6) Rambabu Singh Thakur Vs. Sunil Arora and Ors : Contempt Petition (C) No. 2192/2018 : Publication of criminal cases against candidates selected by political parties along with reasons for such selection
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
13th February 2020 |
7) Kisan shankar Kathore Vs. Arun Dattatray Sawant & Ors. : Civil Appeal No. 4261 of 2007 : Suppression of information regarding assets of spouse in the affidavit
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
9th May 2014 |
8) Manoj Narula vs. Union Of India : (2014) 9 SCC 1 : Duty of PM & CMs not to appoint ministers against whom charges have been framed by a criminal court
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
27th August 2014 |
9) Krishnamoorthy Vs. Sivakumar & Ors. : AIR 2015 SC 1921 : Cancellation of election of law makers on suppression of information about pending criminal cases which are within a special knowledge of candidate
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
5th February 2015 |
10) Rajbala & Ors. Vs. State Of Haryana & Ors. : (W P(Civil) No. 671/2015) : Minimum Educationl Qualification For Panchayat Election
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
10th December 2015 |
11) Shri Marembam Prithviraj @ Prithviraj Singh vs. Phukrem Sharatchandra Singh : Civil Appeal No. 2649/2016
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
28th October 2016 |
12) Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India & Anr. : WP(C) 699/2016 : Formation of Special 11 fast-track courts involving 1581 cases against MPs and MLAs as declared at the time of filing of the nomination papers for the 2014 elections
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
1st November 2017 |
13) Jamuna vs. Secretary, Govt. Of India and others, HCP 90/2020: Madras High Court Order on enacting a law prohibiting candidates with criminal background from contesting in Parliamentary, Assembly amd Local body elections.
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
13th August 2020 |
14) Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India & Anr. : WP(C) 699/2016 : Misuse of Public Prosecutor’s power under Section 321 of Cr.P.C
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
10th August 2021 |
15) Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil vs. K. Madan Mohan Rao & Ors. : WP(C) 6614/2023 : Electoral/voter’s right to know about the full background of a candidate
|
Judgment/Order |
Date of issue |
|
24th July 2023 |