## Facts

- A prior decision recognized that voters are entitled to core information about electoral candidates, including criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities, and educational qualifications, and directed the election authority to obtain such disclosures through nomination-related affidavits.
- Parliament enacted Section 33B of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, stating that candidates were not required to disclose information beyond what the Act expressly required, “notwithstanding” any court judgment or election-authority direction.
- A civil liberties organization and other public-interest petitioners filed an Article 32 constitutional challenge, arguing that Section 33B was designed to nullify the earlier decision and violated voters’ fundamental right to information.
- The case was heard by a three-judge bench; the court issued a majority ruling with a partial dissent on a limited aspect.

## Issues

1. Whether voters’ right to know basic antecedents of electoral candidates is protected by Article 19(1)(a) as part of freedom of speech and expression.
2. Whether Section 33B of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is unconstitutional for restricting candidate disclosures and overriding prior judicial and election-authority directions.
3. Whether ordinary legislation may curtail a fundamental right as judicially interpreted by limiting the information voters may receive about candidates.

## Decision

- The Court held that voters’ right to information about candidates’ basic antecedents is part of Article 19(1)(a).
- The Court struck down Section 33B as unconstitutional because it denied voters information necessary to form and express an informed electoral choice.
- The Court reaffirmed that the election authority may require candidates to furnish specified information by sworn affidavits filed with nomination papers.
- The Court rejected the claim that Section 33B could be justified as a permissible restriction under Article 19(2), concluding it effectively extinguished the informational content of the right.

## Legal Principles

- The freedom of speech and expression includes a right to receive information necessary for meaningful political choice; informed voting is constitutionally protected even if the franchise is statutory.
- Voters are entitled to disclosure of basic candidate information, including criminal background, assets and liabilities, and educational qualifications, to enable informed electoral decision-making and public evaluation.
- Legislation cannot, through a “notwithstanding” clause, negate a fundamental right as defined by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution; only constitutionally valid means may alter constitutional rights.
- The election authority’s constitutional mandate to conduct free and fair elections includes power to issue directions and require affidavits to secure transparency where statutory provisions are silent or inadequate, so long as directions do not conflict with an express statutory command.

## Conclusion

The Court constitutionalized the “voter’s right to know” under Article 19(1)(a), invalidated Section 33B for suppressing essential candidate disclosures, and confirmed the election authority’s power to mandate affidavit-based transparency to support informed electoral choice.


People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2003) 4 S.C.C. 399 (India 2003)