The Long BenchDoctrine 7 of 8Article 19(1)(a), 105 and 324

Elections and democracy

Union of India v. ADR (2002) held that voters have a right to know the antecedents of the candidates they vote for, and the same right to know decided the electoral bonds case in 2024. In between, Lily Thomas ended the rule that let convicted legislators keep their seats while appealing, PUCL gave voters a “None of the Above” option, and Anoop Baranwal set a committee to appoint Election Commissioners until Parliament legislated. Sita Soren (2024) held that legislative privilege does not protect a legislator who takes a bribe.

6 judgments · 2002 to 2024 · 5 links to earlier cases

In date order. The line above each judgment says what it did to an earlier case; Later says what became of it. Follow this case lights up the judgments it is linked to in this chapter.

2002
The candidate disclosure case
Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms
Decided 2 May 2002 · 3 judges · (2002) 5 SCC 294
Held. The Court held that voters have a right to know the antecedents of candidates, part of freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a), and directed the Election Commission to require every candidate to disclose criminal cases, assets, liabilities and educational qualifications.
Why it matters. Voters’ right to know runs from this case to the electoral bonds judgment of 2024.
Later Built on in Lily Thomas (2013) · Built on in People’s Union for Civil Liberties (2013) · Built on in Electoral bonds case (2024)
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)
2013
Built on Union v. ADR (2002)
The disqualification case
Lily Thomas v. Union of India
Decided 10 July 2013 · 2 judges · (2013) 7 SCC 653
Held. The Court struck down section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which let sitting legislators keep their seats while appealing a conviction. A Member of Parliament or of a State Legislature convicted of an offence carrying the disqualification now loses the seat from the date of conviction.
Why it matters. It is the case behind the immediate disqualification of convicted legislators.
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)
2013
Built on Union v. ADR (2002)
The NOTA case
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India
Decided 27 September 2013 · 3 judges
Held. The Court held that the right to vote includes the right not to vote for any candidate, and that this choice must be secret. It directed the Election Commission to provide a “None of the Above” (NOTA) button on electronic voting machines.
Why it matters. NOTA appeared on ballots from the elections of late 2013.
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)
2023
Built on Vishaka (1997) · Equality, reservation and education
The Election Commission appointments case
Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India
Decided 2 March 2023 · 5 judges
Held. Until Parliament made a law, the Court directed that the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners be appointed by the President on the advice of a committee of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition (or of the largest opposition party) in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India.
Why it matters. Parliament then enacted the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which puts a Union Cabinet Minister in the place of the Chief Justice.
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)
2024
Built on Union v. ADR (2002)Applied K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) · Privacy, dignity and identity
The electoral bonds case
Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India
Decided 15 February 2024 · 5 judges
Held. The Court unanimously struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 and the amendments that allowed anonymous and unlimited political donations, including by companies. It held that voters’ right to information about political funding is part of Article 19(1)(a), and directed the State Bank of India to disclose the bond details to the Election Commission for publication.
Why it matters. It is the latest step in the line of cases on voters’ right to know.
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)
2024
The legislators’ bribery case
Sita Soren v. Union of India
Decided 4 March 2024 · 7 judges
Held. A seven-judge bench unanimously held that parliamentary privilege under Articles 105 and 194 does not protect a legislator who takes a bribe to vote or speak in a certain way. The offence is complete when the bribe is taken. It overruled P.V. Narasimha Rao (1998).
Why it matters. It is the leading case on the limits of legislative privilege.
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)