Lok Prahari vs Union of India | Law Optional Notes for UPSC PDF Download

Facts of Lok Prahari vs Union of India

• In the case of Lok Prahari vs Union of India, the petitioner is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, comprising retired civil servants, including individuals with a history of holding constitutional offices.
• The central issue in this case revolves around the constitutional norms governing the electoral process in India, specifically focusing on the right to vote and the right to contest elections as outlined in Article 324 of the Indian Constitution.
• The Indian Constitution establishes the Election Commission to oversee and manage elections, with varying restrictions on the rights to vote and contest elections for different bodies.
• Article 326 of the Indian Constitution lays down criteria for elections to the House of People and legislative assemblies, with specific age requirements for eligibility detailed in Articles 84(b) and 183(b) for the Parliament and state legislatures, respectively.
• Furthermore, Articles 58, 66, 102, and 191 provide qualifications and disqualifications for various elected positions, ensuring that individuals meet certain criteria to hold these offices.

Issues Addressed in Lok Prahari vs Union of India Case

• Necessity of Specific Information in Form 26: One of the key concerns raised was the requirement for changes in Form 26 to include precise details.
• Revisions to Representation of the People Act, 1951: The case deliberated on the essentiality of amendments to the existing legislation.
• Corruption Implications of Asset and Income Concealment: It was questioned whether the failure to disclose assets and income sources by candidates and their affiliates should be categorized as corrupt behavior.
• Disclosure of Contracts with Government Entities: Another point of contention was whether electoral candidates should reveal information regarding contracts held with governmental or public entities.
• Obligation to Investigate Asset Growth of MPs and MLAs: The case also addressed whether there exists a duty to investigate substantial increases in the assets of Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs).

These were the primary issues brought up in the Lok Prahari vs Union of India case, each contributing significantly to the broader discourse on electoral transparency and accountability.

Contention of The Respondent

• The respondent in the Lok Prahari versus Union of India case expresses dissatisfaction with the insufficient attention given by both Parliament and the Election Commission of India to the identified issue.
• The second respondent aligns with the petitioner's stance, underscoring the importance of every candidate revealing their income sources, as articulated in a counter-affidavit.

Judgement in Lok Prahari vs Union of India

• The court's directives in Lok Prahari vs Union of India necessitate Respondent No (1) & (2) to implement the court's directions within the constitutional framework.
• Emphasizing the significance of providing voters with comprehensive information, including candidate income and asset sources, the court aims to empower voters to make informed choices, thus increasing transparency in the electoral process.
• Recognizing the need for inquiries into disproportionate asset increases by candidates, the court stresses that such scrutiny should be targeted. It warns against broad investigations without a consistent monitoring mechanism, as they may be politically motivated and, therefore, discouraged.
• Endorsing an appropriate amendment to Rule 4A of The Conduct of Election Rules, the court mandates specific information in Form 26 to assist voters in informed decision-making during elections.
• Drawing from Krishnamoorthy v Sivakumar & others(2015) 3 SCC 467, the court highlights that non-disclosure of assets and income sources by candidates and affiliates is considered a corrupt practice under "undue influence" as per Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act of 1951.
• Clarifying that disclosure of contracts with the government or public companies is essential, the court specifies that candidates, their spouses, dependents, undivided families, partnership firms, or private companies must furnish this information. While crucial for disqualification on asset accumulation grounds, candidates are not obliged to disclose this information.

Conclusion

• The Lok Prahari vs Union of India case established that any member of Parliament, Legislative Assembly, or Legislative Council convicted of a crime and sentenced to a minimum of two years in prison would promptly lose their membership. The Union of India, representing the government, operates within the framework of a democratic, secular, and sovereign republic with a parliamentary system of governance.
• In this system, the President serves as the constitutional head of the executive branch at the Union level, while in the states, the Governor acts as the head of the executive, representing the President. The legislative branch at the Union level is known as Parliament and comprises two Houses: the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) and the House of the People (Lok Sabha). The President and the two Houses collectively form the Union's legislature.
• It is essential for each House of Parliament to convene within six months of its preceding sitting, ensuring regular legislative sessions and the functioning of the democratic process in the country.