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:

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.

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.

4) Foreign Funding Taken By BJP and INC Delhi High CourtSupreme 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.

5) Ashok Shankarao Chavan vs. Madhao Rao Kindhalkar and Others: The Alleged Paid News Case Delhi High CourtSupreme 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

 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 )

 2) S. Subramaniam Balaji Vs. The Government Of Tamil Nadu & Ors. : (2013) 9 SCC659 : Guidelines for election manifesto

 3) Moti Lal Yadav Vs. Election Commission Of India & Ors. : Caste Based Rallies ( MISC. BENCH No. - 5889 of 2013 )

 4) Resurgence India Vs. Election Commission OF India : 2014 AIR (SC) 344 : Rejection of nomination papers in case of blank affidavits

 5) Public Interest foundation & Ors. Vs. Union Of India & Anr. : W P(CIVIL) NO. 536 OF 2011

 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 

 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

 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

 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

 10) Rajbala & Ors. Vs. State Of Haryana & Ors. : (W P(Civil) No. 671/2015) : Minimum Educationl Qualification For Panchayat Election 

  11) Shri Marembam Prithviraj @ Prithviraj Singh vs. Phukrem Sharatchandra Singh : Civil Appeal No. 2649/2016

 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

 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.

 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

 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