MANOJ NARULA Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2014-8-54
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
August 27,2014
MANOJ NARULA
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA (UOI)
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRWAYS PTY LTD. V. COMMONWEALTH [REFERRED TO]LAMSHED V. LAKE [REFERRED TO]
MELBOURNE CORPORATION V. COMMONWEALTH [REFERRED TO]
S.P. GUPTA V. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
ROMESH THAPPAR VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
RAI SAHIB RAM JAWAYA KAPUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
MANGAL SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
U N R RAO VS. INDIRA GANDHI [REFERRED TO]
G NARAYANASWAMI VS. G PANNERSELVAM [REFERRED TO]
HIS HOLINESS KESAVANANDA BHARATI SRIPADAGALVARU SHRI RAGHUNATH RAO GANPAT RAO N H NAWAB MOHAMMAD IFTIKHAR ALI KHAN SHETHIA MINING AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION LIMITED THE ORIENTAL GOAL GO LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SAMSHER SINGH ISHWAR CHAND AGARWAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI SHRI RAJ NARAIN VS. RAJ NARAIN INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH GILL VS. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
MINERVA MILLS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
S RAGHBIR SINGH GILL VS. S GURCHARAN SINGH TOHRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. A PARENT OF A STUDENT OF MEDICAL COLLEGE SIMLA [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI KANT PANDEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES ON RECORD ASSOCIATION S P GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
JOGINDER KUMAR VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
R RAJAGOPAL ALIAS R R GOPAL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
M J SIVANI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
T N SESHAN CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA CHO S RAMASWAMY B K RAI COMMON CAUSE A REGISTERED SOCIETY VS. UNION OF INDIA :UNION OF INDIA :UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
D K BASU ASHOK K JOHRI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL :STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
DINESH TRIVEDI M P VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ANUKUL CHANDRA PRADHAN ADVOCATE SUPREME COURT VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
VISHAKA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
PATANGRAO KADAM VS. PRITHAVIRAJ SAYAJIRAO YADAV DESHMUKH [REFERRED TO]
S R CHAUDHARY VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
B R KAPUR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. JALGAON MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
M P SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT VS. STATE OF M P [REFERRED TO]
K PRABHAKARAN VS. P JAYARAJAN [REFERRED TO]
RANJITSING BRAHMAJEETSING SHARMA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SRIKANT VS. VASANTRAO [REFERRED TO]
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
KULDIP NAYAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
M NAGARAJ VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
I R COELHO VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE PATIALA VS. MODEL TOWN RESIDENTS ASSON [REFERRED TO]
U P POWER CORPORATION LTD VS. SANT STEELS AND ALLOYS P LTD [REFERRED TO]
N KANNADASAN VS. AJOY KHOSE [REFERRED TO]
A ABDUL FAROOK VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PERAMBALUR [REFERRED TO]
BHANUMATI VS. STATE OF UP [REFERRED TO]
B P SINGHAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GAINDA RAM VS. M C D [REFERRED TO]
S GANESAN VS. RAMA RAGHURAMAN [REFERRED TO]
CENTRE FOR PIL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH GOUR VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
V K NASWA VS. HOME SECRETARY U O I [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SALIL SABHLOK [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN HEMCHANDRA SASHITTAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
LILY THOMAS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
J ANBAZHAGAN VS. SPEAKER, TAMIL NADU LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-760] [REFERRED TO]PARUL PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2020-9-66] [REFERRED TO]
JAWAHAR LALL AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2016-3-45] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAMOORTHY VS. SIVAKUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2015-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
NISHA PRIYA BHATIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2020-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS VS. SATPAL SAINI [LAWS(SC)-2017-2-76] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. JAIPRAKASH-GAYATRI JOINT VENTURE VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2017-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRASAD BAUDH VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-91] [REFERRED TO]
ASOK PANDE VS. AZAM KHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-4-23] [REFERRED TO]
M.L. DEWANGAN VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2016-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
UMESH KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2020-10-65] [REFERRED TO]
SUPREME COURT WOMEN LAWYERS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(SC)-2016-1-78] [REFERRED TO]
PUKHREM SHARATCHANDRA SINGH VS. MAIREMBAM PRITHVIRAJ @ PRITHIBIRAJ SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2015-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
JUSTICE K. S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD) VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2018-9-108] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION & ORS. VS. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
JAYAMMA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-1-146] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH KUMAR S/O SH RATTI RAM SHARMA VS. STATE OF H P [LAWS(HPH)-2014-12-109] [REFERRED TO]
FAROOQ BHUTTO SON OF Z A BHUTTO VS. STATE OF H P [LAWS(HPH)-2014-12-198] [REFERRED]
J.DEEPAK VS. SECRETARY [LAWS(MAD)-2021-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAMENDRASINH JAYSINH KUSHVAH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-2-140] [REFERRED TO]
SAMDARIYA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-10-177] [REFERRED TO]
CAPT (RETD ) O P SHARMA & ANR VS. KAMLA SHARMA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2008-3-387] [REFERRED]
UNITED RWAS JOINT ACTION AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-10-324] [REFERRED TO]
PFIZER LIMITED & ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-12-54] [REFERRED TO]
KKSPUN INDIA LTD VS. U. P. JAL NIGAM [LAWS(ALL)-2021-6-76] [REFERRED TO]
JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (READ.) VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-8-94] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILESH MANUBHAI PARMAR VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA THROUGH CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER & ORS [LAWS(SC)-2018-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
KALPANA MEHTA AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2017-4-59] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BOARD OF DAWOODI BOHRA COMMUNITY VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2023-2-25] [REFERRED TO]
BRAJESH SINGH VS. SUNIL ARORA [LAWS(SC)-2021-8-15] [REFERRED TO]
VIPUL JAIN VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2019-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
KALPANA MEHTA AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2018-5-31] [REFERRED TO]
NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR VS. UNION OF INDIA THR SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE [LAWS(SC)-2018-9-22] [REFERRED TO]
KAUSHAL KISHOR VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2023-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
VISHWANATH H. M. VS. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-12-252] [REFERRED TO]
K. SRINIVAS VS. KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION [LAWS(KAR)-2022-4-131] [REFERRED TO]
S. RAMACHANDRAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2023-9-78] [REFERRED TO]
TULSI RAM SON OF RAMCHARAN NAI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2016-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY NAMDEORAO WADETTIWAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-9-115] [REFERRED TO]
FIROJ BHUTTO VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2014-12-166] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2016-8-76] [REFERRED TO]
ASHA RANJAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2016-9-77] [REFERRED TO]
NABAM REBIA, AND BAMANG FELIX VS. DEPUTY SPEAKER AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2016-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
P VETRIVEL VS. P DHANABAL [LAWS(MAD)-2018-10-387] [REFERRED TO]
A PARI VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-54] [REFERRED TO]
HEMLATA PRADHAN VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2019-9-85] [REFERRED TO]
MASTER BALACHANDAR KRISHNAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-9-642] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL GANDHI VS. PURNESH ISHWERBHAI MODI [LAWS(GJH)-2023-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR [LAWS(SC)-2018-9-77] [REFERRED TO]
NEERA YADAV VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(SC)-2017-8-67] [REFERRED TO]
NAND KISHORE GARG VS. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2022-7-135] [REFERRED TO]
BAHUJAN SAMAJ PARTY VS. HONOURABLEBLE SPEAKER, RAJASTHAN LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY [LAWS(RAJ)-2020-8-33] [REFERRED TO]
PAVAN COAL COMPANY VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-394] [REFERRED TO]
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2015-10-80] [REFERRED TO]
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-12-75] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH PANDEY VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANOTHER [LAWS(UTN)-2017-6-40] [REFERRED TO]
PARTHA SARATHI SINHA VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
AMAL CHANDRA DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2024-5-59] [REFERRED TO]
ABHISHEK MISHRA VS. THE STATE OF GOA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-12-112] [REFERRED TO]
N.RAMESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2020-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
GANGAJALI EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2018-3-53] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2018-10-209] [REFERRED TO]
LOUREMBAM DEBEN SINGH & ORS VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS ETC [LAWS(SC)-2018-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC INTEREST FOUNDATION & ORS VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR [LAWS(SC)-2018-9-73] [REFERRED TO]
P.V. MANOHARAN VS. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2016-2-24] [REFERRED TO]
CHETAN SHARMA VS. STATE & ANOTHER [LAWS(DLH)-2016-11-190] [REFERRED TO]
ADV THOUFEEK AHAMED VISHNU VIHAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2020-9-537] [REFERRED TO]
LABORATE PHARMACEUTICAL INDIA LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2017-10-88] [REFERRED TO]
NARANBHAI BHIKHABHAI KACHHADIA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-4-240] [REFERRED]
RAJESH CHANDULAL SHAH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-6-65] [REFERRED TO]
MURMANSK SHIPPING COMPANY VS. ADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-1-87] [REFERRED TO]
V.ABDULLAH SAIT VS. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-630] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV SURI VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(SC)-2021-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION & ORS VS. STATE OF KERALA & ORS [LAWS(SC)-2018-9-118] [REFERRED TO]
SHAYARA BANO VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2017-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. YOGENDERA MOHAN SENGUPTA [LAWS(SC)-2024-1-28] [REFERRED TO]
ANOOP BARANWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2023-3-130] [REFERRED TO]
MAHIPAL SINGH RANA, ADVOCATE VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2016-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
P. VETRIVEL VS. P. DHANABAL [LAWS(MAD)-2018-6-9] [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2016-5-82] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA PURUSHOTTAM INGOLE VS. HONBLE STATE MINISTER [LAWS(BOM)-2019-3-172] [REFERRED TO]
AZAD VIKRAM SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2016-7-91] [REFERRED]
RAJENDER PRASHAD VS. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2016-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
HARISH CHANDER VS. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-199] [REFERRED TO]
HEM RAJ VS. STATE OF H P & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2017-8-64] [REFERRED TO]
PARMAR SAMANTSINH UMEDSINH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2021-2-66] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER [LAWS(SC)-2018-7-41] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. RAJ KUMAR JHA AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2017-9-50] [REFERRED TO]
SACHIN GALAV VS. PANJAB UNIVERSITY [LAWS(P&H)-2018-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
IMT INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2023-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
RADHA RAMAN SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-8-42] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)A democratic polity, as understood in its quintessential purity, is conceptually abhorrent to corruption and, especially corruption at high places, and repulsive to the idea of criminalization of politics as it corrodes the legitimacy of the collective ethos, frustrates the hopes and aspirations of the citizens and has the potentiality to obstruct, if not derail, the rule of law. Democracy, which has been best defined as the Government of the People, by the People and for the People, expects prevalence of genuine orderliness, positive propriety, dedicated discipline and sanguine sanctity by constant affirmance of constitutional morality which is the pillar stone of good governance. While dealing with the concept of democracy, the majority in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 AIR(SC) 2299], stated that 'democracy' as an essential feature of the Constitution is unassailable. The said principle was reiterated in T.N. Seshan, CEC of India v. Union of India and ors., 1995 4 SCC 611]. and Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India & Ors., 2006 AIR(SC) 3127] It was pronounced with asseveration that democracy is the basic and fundamental structure of the Constitution. There is no shadow of doubt that democracy in India is a product of the rule of law and aspires to establish an egalitarian social order. It is not only a political philosophy but also an embodiment of constitutional philosophy. In People s Union for Civil Liberties and another v. Union of India and another, 2013 10 SCC 1], while holding the voters' rights not to vote for any of the candidates, the Court observed that democracy and free elections are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and, thereafter, proceeded to lay down that democracy being the basic feature of our constitutional set- up, there can be no two opinions that free and fair elections would alone guarantee [pic]the growth of a healthy democracy in the country. The term "fair" denotes equal opportunity to all people. Universal adult suffrage conferred on the citizens of India by the Constitution has made it possible for millions of individual voters to participate in the governance of our country. For democracy to survive, it is fundamental that the best available men should be chosen as the people's representatives for the proper governance of the country and the same can be best achieved through men of high moral and ethical values who win the elections on a positive vote. Emphasizing on a vibrant democracy, the Court observed that the voter must be given an opportunity to choose none of the above (NOTA) button, which will indeed compel the political parties to nominate a sound candidate. Accordingly, the principle of the dire need of negative voting was emphasised. The significance of free and fair election and the necessity of the electorate to have candidates of high moral and ethical values was re-asserted. In this regard, it may be stated that the health of democracy, a cherished constitutional value, has to be protected, preserved and sustained, and for that purpose, instilment of certain norms in the marrows of the collective is absolutely necessitous.
THE REFERENCE
(2.)We have commenced our judgment with the aforesaid prologue as the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed by the petitioner as pro bono publico assailing the appointment of some of the original respondents as Ministers to the Council of Ministers of Union of India despite their involvement in serious and heinous crimes. On 24.3.2006, when the matter was listed before the Bench presided by the learned Chief Justice, the following order came to be passed: -
"A point of great public importance has been raised in this petition. Broadly, the point is about the legality of the person with criminal background and/or charged with offences involving moral turpitude being appointed as ministers in Central and State Governments.
We have heard in brief Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel who was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court, as also the learned Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of India, and Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Attorney General for India. Having regard to the magnitude of the problem and its vital importance, it is but proper that the petition is heard by a Bench of five Judges.
We issue notice to Union of India. Formal notice need not be issued since the Union of India is represented by learned Solicitor General.
Notices shall also be issued to the Advocates General of all the States. The notice shall state that the State Governments and the Union of India may file their affidavits along with relevant material within four weeks of service of notice.
The Prime Minister and some of the Ministers in Union Cabinet have been arrayed as party respondents 2 to 7. It is not necessary to implead individual ministers and/or Prime Minister for deciding the question above- named. Accordingly, respondent Nos. 2 to 7 are deleted from the array of parties.
List the case after the Court reopens after the summer vacation for directions as to fixing a date for its being placed before the Constitution Bench."
In view of the aforesaid order and the subsequent orders, the matter has been placed before us. Considering the controversy raised, we are required to interpret the scope and purpose of Articles 75 and 164 of the Constitution, regard being had to the text, context, scheme and spirit of the Constitution.
THE PURITY OF ELECTION
(3.)In the beginning, we have emphasized on the concept of democracy which is the corner stone of the Constitution. There are certain features absence of which can erode the fundamental values of democracy. One of them is holding of free and fair election by adult franchise in a periodical manner as has been held in Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, 1978 1 SCC 405], for it is the heart and soul of the parliamentary system. In the said case, Krishna Iyer, J. quoted with approval the statement of Sir Winston Churchill which is as follows: -
"At the bottom of all tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into a little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of the point."
THE REFERENCE
(2.)We have commenced our judgment with the aforesaid prologue as the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed by the petitioner as pro bono publico assailing the appointment of some of the original respondents as Ministers to the Council of Ministers of Union of India despite their involvement in serious and heinous crimes. On 24.3.2006, when the matter was listed before the Bench presided by the learned Chief Justice, the following order came to be passed: -
"A point of great public importance has been raised in this petition. Broadly, the point is about the legality of the person with criminal background and/or charged with offences involving moral turpitude being appointed as ministers in Central and State Governments.
We have heard in brief Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel who was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court, as also the learned Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of India, and Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Attorney General for India. Having regard to the magnitude of the problem and its vital importance, it is but proper that the petition is heard by a Bench of five Judges.
We issue notice to Union of India. Formal notice need not be issued since the Union of India is represented by learned Solicitor General.
Notices shall also be issued to the Advocates General of all the States. The notice shall state that the State Governments and the Union of India may file their affidavits along with relevant material within four weeks of service of notice.
The Prime Minister and some of the Ministers in Union Cabinet have been arrayed as party respondents 2 to 7. It is not necessary to implead individual ministers and/or Prime Minister for deciding the question above- named. Accordingly, respondent Nos. 2 to 7 are deleted from the array of parties.
List the case after the Court reopens after the summer vacation for directions as to fixing a date for its being placed before the Constitution Bench."
In view of the aforesaid order and the subsequent orders, the matter has been placed before us. Considering the controversy raised, we are required to interpret the scope and purpose of Articles 75 and 164 of the Constitution, regard being had to the text, context, scheme and spirit of the Constitution.
THE PURITY OF ELECTION
(3.)In the beginning, we have emphasized on the concept of democracy which is the corner stone of the Constitution. There are certain features absence of which can erode the fundamental values of democracy. One of them is holding of free and fair election by adult franchise in a periodical manner as has been held in Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, 1978 1 SCC 405], for it is the heart and soul of the parliamentary system. In the said case, Krishna Iyer, J. quoted with approval the statement of Sir Winston Churchill which is as follows: -
"At the bottom of all tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into a little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of the point."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.