The Lok Sabha elections in India are currently underway. In the midst of this, the Supreme Court made a secure decision on the plea for 100 per cent EVM-VVPAT verification on April 25. Along with this, the apex court has also reiterated its faith in EVMs. This is a new judgement in the long list of 72-year-old court cases. Several decisions of the Supreme Court have shaped the democracy in the country by giving direction to the elections held after independence. Here are some of the historic judgments:
#BREAKING #SupremeCourt reserves judgment on petitions seeking 100% EVM-VVPAT verification.#LokSabhaElections2024 #EVM #ElectionCommission #VVPAT pic.twitter.com/KyIdLx7PGu
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) April 18, 2024
On February 15, 2024, a five-judge bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud declared the election bond scheme, which allows for the identification of political donors to remain confidential, as “unconstitutional” and in violation of Article 19(1)(a) that guarantees the right to information of voters. The Electoral Bonds funding scheme was introduced in 2017. However, due to the decision of the State Bank of India and strict directions of the court, the electoral bond data has been made public in the public domain.
Election Commissioner’s Appointment, the Constitution bench of the SC announced a unanimous decision that the selection of the CEC and EC will be made by a three-member panel, which will include the Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition, and the Chief Justice of India. Later in the year, the government passed a resolution for the appointment of the CEC/EC, in which the Cabinet Minister of the Center was appointed in place of the CJI. However, on January 12, 2024, the SC refused to stay the new law. The court also declined to intervene in the selection of the two ECs in March. However, the court criticized the government for the haste in making the appointments.
Regarding the Electoral Bonds, the court had earlier declared the Electoral Bonds scheme as unconstitutional and in violation of the right to information of voters. The election funding scheme was introduced in 2017, but due to the decision of the State Bank of India and strict directions of the court, the electoral bond data has been made public in the public domain.
1st constitution ah padi Thomas was the petitioner in the case – now referred to as the Lily Thomas judgment – where the Supreme Court struck down in 2013 Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act. Following the verdict, a legislator stands disqualified immediately.
— Kaipulla🇮🇳 (@kannajai) March 25, 2023
In October 2013, in the Subramanium Swamy case, the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to implement the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) in EVMs in a phased manner. The court stated that it was satisfied that a ‘paper trail’ is an essential requirement for free and fair elections. The confidence of voters in EVMs can only be established from the very beginning with the ‘paper trail’. The VVPAT system ensures the accuracy of the EVM-based voting system.
The VVPAT system is a method of providing a physical record of the voter’s choice in an EVM, which can be verified by the voter and later used for verification and auditing purposes. The Supreme Court had ordered the implementation of the VVPAT system to enhance the transparency and credibility of the EVM-based voting system. The court had also stated that the VVPAT system is necessary to maintain the integrity of the electoral process and to build the confidence of the voters in the EVMs.
In July 2013, in the Lily Thomas case, the Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act. This section allowed MPs and MLAs to continue to hold their seats even after being convicted in corruption cases or other criminal offenses for a period of two years or more, if they filed an appeal within 90 days. After the Supreme Court’s decision, disqualification is implemented automatically. If a higher court stays the conviction and sentence, the legislator can regain their seat.
In September 2013, in the PUCL case, the Supreme Court did not accept any of the above-mentioned (note) options for voters. The court also noted that it was important for voters to express their rejection of candidates put forward by political parties. The court stated that increasing rejection would gradually bring about systemic change and force political parties to accept and field candidates who are honest and have integrity. The display of notes during elections was not successful.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Lily Thomas case was a significant step towards ensuring accountability in the political system and preventing convicted legislators from continuing to hold their seats. The PUCL case highlighted the importance of giving voters the option to reject all candidates put forward by political parties and the need for political parties to be more responsible in selecting candidates.
In 1975, on June 12, the Allahabad High Court nullified the election of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi from Rae Bareli. In response, she likened India to Hitler’s regime and declared a state of Emergency. During this period, citizens’ rights were suspended, opposition leaders were unjustly imprisoned, all in a bid to cling to power. Amendments were swiftly made to laws to protect her position, notably the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1975, and the 39th Constitutional Amendment Act, which aimed to shield her from legal challenges. During the pendency of the Prime Minister’s appeal in the Supreme Court, the Parliament passed the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1975, which made several changes to the Representation of the People Act. The Parliament also passed the 39th Constitutional Amendment Act, which barred the courts from examining the elections of the Prime Minister and the Speaker. However, in November 1975, the Supreme Court upheld Indira Gandhi’s election but struck down the 39th Amendment Act to a certain extent, thereby allowing the courts to examine the elections of the Prime Minister and the Speaker in case of election petitions.
Allahabad High Court convicted Indira Gandhi of electoral malpractices and disqualified her from the Parliament and She declared Emergency in 1975.
Even after 47 years Congress is still showing same tendency when ED is questioning Rahul Gandhi. pic.twitter.com/PSqRmCmreU
— Political Kida (@PoliticalKida) June 25, 2022
Protection of Voter Rights: Towards the end of the century, the Supreme Court made several historic decisions to protect and expand the rights of voters. In 2002, in the Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms case, the court ruled that voters have a fundamental right to know the criminal records, educational qualifications, and assets of the candidates. The court stated that the right to information is a fundamental right, which flows from the right to freedom of speech and expression. Following this judgment, the NDA government introduced a provision in the Representation of the People Act to exempt candidates from declaring their criminal records. However, in 2004, the Supreme Court declared this provision as unconstitutional and made it mandatory for candidates to declare their criminal records, including FIRs, chargesheets, and convictions.
These decisions of the Supreme Court have played a crucial role in ensuring transparency and accountability in the electoral process and have helped to protect the rights of voters. The court’s judgments have also helped to promote informed decision-making by voters and have ensured that candidates with criminal backgrounds are held accountable for their actions.
In 1971, the Congress party had split in 1969, with factions led by Jagjivan Ram and S. Nijalingappa staking claim to the party’s name. In this context, the Election Commission (EC) ruled in favor of the Jagjivan Ram faction, recognizing them as the official Congress party and granting them the support of Congress MPs, MLAs, and other representatives. Later, in the case of Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India (1971), the Supreme Court upheld the EC’s decision-making process. At that time, it was challenging to determine who the primary members were and to ascertain their views. However, it can be said that the members and representatives of the All India Congress Committee came together to express the views of the primary members. The Election Commission has recently made a decision in the case of the split in the Shiv Sena and NCP parties based on the same principle that it applied in the 1969 Congress case.
In 1952, before the first general election, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment in the case of Ponnuswami. In this case, the court held that the term “election” in Article 329(b) of the Constitution refers to the entire electoral process, starting from the issuance of the notification for the election. The court further held that once the electoral process has begun, no intervention is permissible from any intermediary stage by the court. Therefore, a disgruntled candidate can only challenge election irregularities through an election petition after the results have been declared. This principle established by the Supreme Court has been a guiding factor in the conduct of elections in India and has helped ensure the integrity and fairness of the electoral process.
