Global Freedom of Expression

Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Another; with People’s Union for Civil Liberties and another v. Union of India and another

Closed Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Public Documents
  • Date of Decision
    May 2, 2002
  • Outcome
    Affirmed Lower Court, Access to Information Granted, Law or Action Upheld
  • Case Number
    2002 (3) SCR 294
  • Region & Country
    India, Asia and Asia Pacific
  • Judicial Body
    Supreme (court of final appeal)
  • Type of Law
    Administrative Law, Constitutional Law
  • Themes
    Access to Public Information, Political Expression
  • Tags
    Scope of Information Covered, Educational Information, Income and Assets, Right to Know

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

The Supreme Court of India upheld a High Court order mandating the Election Commission to obtain and disclose to the public background information relating to candidates running for office, including information on their assets, criminal records, and educational background.  The Supreme Court ruled that the right to know about public officials is derived from the constitutional right to freedom of expression.

This case analysis was contributed by


The Association for Democratic Reforms filed a petition with the High Court of Delhi to compel implementation of certain recommendations regarding how to make the electoral process in India more fair, transparent and equitable. As requested by the Government of India, these recommendations had been produced by the Law Commission and provided that the Election Commission should require all candidates to disclose personal background information to the public, including criminal history, educational qualifications, personal financial details and other information necessary for judging a candidate’s capacity and capability.

Ruling that a candidate’s background should not be kept in the dark as it is not in the interest of democracy, the High Court of Delhi ordered the Election Commission to obtain such information for the benefit of the voters. The Union of India challenged the decision through an appeal to the Supreme Court of India, arguing that the Election Commission and the High Court did not have such powers and that voters did not have a right to such information.

Decision Overview

The Court issued two main rulings: (1) When the legislature is silent on a particular subject and an entity (in this case, the Election Commission) has been granted implementation authority with respect to such subject, the Court assumes that the entity has the power to issue directions or orders to fill such a void until a suitable law on the subject is enacted; and (2) Citizens have a right to know about public functionaries, which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech and expression and which includes the right to know about the backgrounds of candidates for public office.

With regard to the first ruling, the Court confirmed that Article 324 “operates in areas unoccupied by legislation” and that “[t]he silence of a statute has no exclusionary effect except where it flows from necessary implication”. [p. 10-11] In other words, the Court’s power to issue directions pursuant to Article 324 is plenary. [p. 19] By extension, the Election Commission, as ordered by the Court, can issue suitable directions to maintain the purity and transparency of the “entire process of election”. [pp. 13, 19]

With regard to the second ruling, the Court characterized the right to know as a right derived from the right to freedom of speech and expression. The public has a right to know about candidates contesting elections because such rights include the right to hold opinions and acquire information so as to be sufficiently informed in forming and disseminating those opinions throughout the election process. The Court advanced this point by observing that a successful democracy strives toward an “aware citizenry” and misinformation or non-information of any kind will create an “uniformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce”. [p. 16]

With the above decided, the Court directed the Election Commission to issue the necessary orders to obtain from each candidate for election to Parliament or a State Legislature information on the following aspects of their background: any criminal charges and convictions in the candidate’s past, any pending cases in which the candidate is an accused, all assets of a candidate including those of his or her spouse, all liabilities of a candidate, and all educational qualifications of a candidate.

Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

Related International and/or regional laws

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • India, Const. art. 32
  • India, Const., art. 141
  • India, Representation of the People Act, sec. 33
  • India, Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others [1992 Supp (2) SCC 651]
  • India, Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi [(1978) 1 SCC 405]
  • India, Const., art. 324
  • India, Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi and others [(1985) 4 SCC 628]
  • India, A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai, [(1984) 2 SCC 656]
  • India, Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India and others, [(1996) 2 SCC 752]
  • India, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Narain, (1975) 3 S.C.R. 333
  • India, Companies Act, sec. 293-A
  • India, Income Tax Act, sec. 13-A
  • India, Representation of the People Act, sec. 77
  • India, Evidence Act, sec. 123
  • India, Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 2 S.C.R. 287
  • India, Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, (1950 SCR 594)
  • India, Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India and Ors. v. Cricket Association of Bengal and Ors., 1995 AIR 1236 (1995)
  • India, Trivedi, M.P. v. Union of India, (1997) 3 S.C.R. 93
  • India, P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) [(1998) 4 SCC 626]
  • India, Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan & Ors (1997), 6 SCC 241
  • India, Vineet Narain and Others v. Union of India and Another [(1998) 1 SCC 226]

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

In December 2002, in response to the judgment, Parliament amended Representation of the People Act.  The Amended Act required a candidate for office to provide information “as to whether he is accused [or convicted] of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case” (Section 33A). No candidate could be compelled to disclose any additional information, including educational qualifications and assets and liabilities, “notwithstanding  anything contained in the judgment of any court or directions issued by the Election Commission” (Section 33B).  The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 33 in the case Union for Civil Liberties and Another (PUCL) v. Union of India and Another.

The decision was cited in:

Official Case Documents

Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback