JUDGMENT Shah, J.-These writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India have been filed challenging the validity of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002 (No.4 of 2002) ("Ordinance" for short) promulgated by the President of India on 24th August, 2002. 2. There was an era when a powerful or a rich or a strong or a dacoit aged more than 60 years married a beautiful young girl despite her resistance. Except to weep, she had no choice of selecting her male. To a large extent, such situation does not prevail today. Now, young persons are selecting mates of their choice after verifying full details thereof. Should we not have such a situation in selecting a candidate contesting elections? In a vibrant democracy - is it not required that a little voter should know bio-data of his/her would be Rulers, Law-makers or Destiny-maker of the Nation? 3. Is there any necessity of keeping in dark the voters that their candidate was involved in criminal cases of murder, dacoity or rape. Or has acquired the wealth by unjustified means? May be that he is acquitted because Investigating Officer failed to unearth the truth or because the witnesses turned hostile. In some cases, apprehending danger to their life, witnesses fail to reveal what was seen by them. 4. Is there any necessity of permitting candidates or his supporters to use unaccounted money during elections? If assets are declared, would it not amount to having some control on unaccounted election expenditure? 5. It is equally true that right step in that direction is taken by amending the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) on the basis of judgment rendered by this Court in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms [ (2002) 5 SCC 294 ]. Still however, question to be decided is - whether it is in accordance with what has been declared in the said judgment? 6. After concluding hearing of the arguments on 23rd October, 2002, the matter was reserved for pronouncement of judgment. Before the judgment could be pronounced, the Ordinance was repealed and on 28th December 2002, the Representation of the People (3rd Amendment) Act, 2002 ("Amended Act" for short) was notified to come into force with retrospective effect. 6. After concluding hearing of the arguments on 23rd October, 2002, the matter was reserved for pronouncement of judgment. Before the judgment could be pronounced, the Ordinance was repealed and on 28th December 2002, the Representation of the People (3rd Amendment) Act, 2002 ("Amended Act" for short) was notified to come into force with retrospective effect. Thereafter, an amendment application was moved before us challenging the validity of Section 33B of the Amendment Act which was granted because there is no change in the cause of action nor in the wording of Section 33B of the Amended Act, validity of which is under challenge. At the request of learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India, time to file additional counter was granted and the matter was further heard on 31st January, 2003. 7. It is apparent that there is no change in the wording (even full stop or coma) of Sections 33A and 33B of the Ordinance and Sections 33A and 33B of the Amended Act. The said Sections read as under- "33A. Right to information.-(1) A candidate shall, apart from any information, which he is required to furnish, under this Act or the rules made thereunder, in his nomination paper delivered under sub-section (1) of section 33, also furnish the information as to whether- (i) he is accused of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case in which a charge has been framed by the court of competent jurisdiction; (ii) he has been convicted of an offence other than any offence referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), or covered in sub-section (3) of section 8 and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more. (2) The candidate or his proposer, as the case may be, shall, at the time of delivering to the returning officer the nomination paper under sub-section (1) of section 33, also deliver to him an affidavit sworn by the candidate in a prescribed form verifying the information specified in sub-section (1). (3) The returning officer shall, as soon as may be after the furnishing of information to him under sub-section (1), display the aforesaid information by affixing a copy of the affidavit, delivered under sub-section (2) at a conspicuous place at his office for the information of the electors relating to a constituency for which the nomination paper is delivered." 33B. (3) The returning officer shall, as soon as may be after the furnishing of information to him under sub-section (1), display the aforesaid information by affixing a copy of the affidavit, delivered under sub-section (2) at a conspicuous place at his office for the information of the electors relating to a constituency for which the nomination paper is delivered." 33B. Candidate to furnish information only under the Act and the rules.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or any direction, order or any other instruction issued by the Election Commission, no candidate shall be liable to disclose or furnish any such information, in respect of his election, which is not required to be disclosed or furnished under this Act or the rules made thereunder. 8. For the directions, which were issued in Association for Democratic Reforms (supra), it is contended that some of them are incorporated by the statutory provisions but with regard to remaining directions it has been provided therein that no candidate shall be liable to disclose or furnish any such information in respect of his election which is not required to be disclosed or furnished under the Act or the Rules made thereunder, despite the directions issued by this Court. Therefore, the aforesaid Section 33B is under challenge. 9. At the outset, we would state that such exercise of power by the Legislature giving similar directions was undertaken in the past and this Court in unequivocal words declared that the Legislature in this country has no power to ask the instrumentalities of the State to disobey or disregard the decisions given by the Courts. For this, we would quote some observations on the settled legal position having direct bearing on the question involved in these matters: - 10. A. Dealing with the validity of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation (Gujarat Amendment and Validating Provisions) Ordinance 1969, this Court in The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and another v. The New Shrock Spg. And Wvg. Co. Ltd. [ (1970) 2 SCC 280 ] observed thus:- "7. This is a strange provision. Prima facie that provision appears to command the Corporation to refuse to refund the amount illegally collected despite the orders of this Court and the High Court. The State of Gujarat was not well advised in introducing this provision. And Wvg. Co. Ltd. [ (1970) 2 SCC 280 ] observed thus:- "7. This is a strange provision. Prima facie that provision appears to command the Corporation to refuse to refund the amount illegally collected despite the orders of this Court and the High Court. The State of Gujarat was not well advised in introducing this provision. That provision attempts to make a direct inroad into the judicial powers of the State. The Legislatures under our Constitution have within the prescribed limits, powers to make laws prospectively as well as retrospectively. By exercise of those powers, the Legislature can remove the basis of a decision rendered by a competent court thereby rendering that decision ineffective. But no Legislature in this country has power to ask the instrumentalities of the State to disobey or disregard the decisions given by courts..." 11. Further, Khanna, J. In Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain [1975 Supp. SCC 1] succinctly and without any ambiguity observed thus:- "190. A declaration that an order made by a court of law is void is normally part of the judicial function and is not a legislative function. Although there is in the Constitution of India no rigid separation of powers, by and large the spheres of judicial function and legislative function have been demarcated and it is not permissible for the Legislature to encroach upon the judicial sphere. It has accordingly been held that a Legislature while it is entitled to change with retrospective effect the law which formed the basis of the judicial decision, it is not permissible to the Legislature to declare the judgment of the court to be void or not binding. 12. It is also settled law that the Legislature may remove the defect which is the cause for invalidating the law by the Court by appropriate legislation if it has power over the subject matter and competence to do so under the Constitution. 13. B. Secondly, we would reiterate that the primary duty of the Judiciary is to uphold the Constitution and the laws without fear or favour, without being biased by political ideology or economic theory. Interpretation should be in consonance with the Constitutional provisions, which envisage a republic democracy. Survival of democracy depends upon free and fair election. 13. B. Secondly, we would reiterate that the primary duty of the Judiciary is to uphold the Constitution and the laws without fear or favour, without being biased by political ideology or economic theory. Interpretation should be in consonance with the Constitutional provisions, which envisage a republic democracy. Survival of democracy depends upon free and fair election. It is true that the elections are fought by political parties, yet election would be a farce if the voters are unaware of antecedents of candidates contesting elections. Their decision to vote either in favour of A or B candidate would be without any basis. Such election would be neither free nor fair. 14. For this purpose, we would refer to the observations made by Khanna, J. in His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and another [ (1973) 4 SCC 225 ], which read thus- "That all constitutional interpretations have political consequences should not obliterate the fact that the decision has to be arrived at in the calm and dispassionate atmosphere of the court room, that Judges in order to give legitimacy to their decision have to keep aloof from the din and controversy of politics and that the fluctuating fortunes of rival political parties can have for them only academic interest. Their primary duty is to uphold the Constitution and the laws without fear or favour and in doing so, they cannot allow any political ideology or economic theory, which may have caught their fancy, to colour the decision." 15. C. It is also equally settled law that the Court should not shirk its duty from performing its function merely because it has political thicket. Following observations (of Bhagwati, J., as he then was) made in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India [ (1977) 3 SCC 592 ] were referred to and relied upon by this Court in B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu [ (2001) 7 SCC 231 ]: "53. But merely because the question has a political complexion, that by itself is no ground why the court should shrink from performing its duty under the Constitution if it raises an issue of constitutional determination. Every constitutional question concerns the allocation and exercise of governmental power and no constitutional question can, therefore, fail to be political.... But merely because the question has a political complexion, that by itself is no ground why the court should shrink from performing its duty under the Constitution if it raises an issue of constitutional determination. Every constitutional question concerns the allocation and exercise of governmental power and no constitutional question can, therefore, fail to be political.... So long as a question arises whether an authority under the Constitution has acted within the limits of its power or exceeded it, it can certainly be decided by the court. Indeed it would be its constitutional obligation to do so. It is necessary to assert the clearest possible terms, particularly in the context of recent history, that the Constitution is suprema lex, the paramount law of the land, and there is no department or branch of Government above or beyond it." Submissions :- 16. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Rajinder Sachar and Mr. P.P. Rao for the petitioners that the Section 33B is, on the face of it, arbitrary and unjustifiable. It is their contention that the aforesaid section is on the face of it void as a law cannot be passed which violates abridges the fundamental rights of the citizens/voters, declared and recognised by this Court. It is submitted that without exercise of the right to know the relevant antecedents of the candidate, it will not be possible to have free and fair elections. Therefore, the impugned Section violates the very basic features of the Constitution, namely, republic democracy. For having free and fair elections, anywhere in the territory of this country, it is necessary to give effect to the voters fundamental right as declared by this Court in the above judgment. 17. It has been contended that, in our country, at present about 700 legislators and 25 to 30 Members of Parliament are having criminal record. It is also contended that almost all political parties declare that persons having criminal record should not be given tickets, yet for one or other reason, political parties under some compulsion give tickets to some persons having criminal records and some persons having no criminal records get support from criminals. It is contended by learned senior counsel Mr. It is also contended that almost all political parties declare that persons having criminal record should not be given tickets, yet for one or other reason, political parties under some compulsion give tickets to some persons having criminal records and some persons having no criminal records get support from criminals. It is contended by learned senior counsel Mr. Sachar that by issuing the Ordinance, the Government has arrogated to itself the power to decide unilaterally for nullifying the decision rendered by this Court without considering whether it can pass legislation which abridges fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). It is his submission that the Ordinance is issued and thereafter the Act is amended because it appears that the Government is interested in having uninformed ignorant voters. 18. Contra, learned Solicitor General Mr. Kirit N. Raval and learned senior counsel Arun Jaitley appearing on behalf of the intervenor, with vehemence, submitted that the aforesaid Ordinance/Amended Act is in consonance with the judgment rendered by this Court and the vacuum pointed out by the said judgment is filled in by the enactment. It is also contended by learned senior counsel Mr. Jaitley that voters right to know the antecedents of the candidate is not part of the fundamental rights, but it is a derivative fundamental right on the basis of interpretation of Article 19(1)(a) given by this Court. It is submitted that the Ordinance/Amended Act is in public interest and, therefore, it cannot be held to be illegal or void. In support of their contentions, learned counsel for the parties have referred to various decisions rendered by this Court. Whether Ordinance/Amended Act covers the directions issued by this Court:- 19. Before dealing with the rival submissions, we would refer to the following directions (para 48) given by this Court in Association for Democratic Rights case (supra): "The Election Commission is directed to call for information on affidavit by issuing necessary order in exercise of its power under Article 324 of the Constitution of India from each candidate seeking election to Parliament or a State Legislature as a necessary part of his nomination paper, furnishing therein, information on the following aspects in relation to his/her candidature: - (1) Whether the candidate is convicted/acquitted/discharged of any criminal offence in the past-if any, whether he is punished with imprisonment or fine? (2) Prior to six months of filing of nomination, whether the candidate is accused in any pending case, of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more, and in which charge is framed or cognizance is taken by the Court of law. If so, the details thereof? (3) The assets (immovable, movable, bank balance etc.) of a candidate and of his/her spouse and that of dependants. (4) Liabilities, if any, particularly whether there are any over dues of any public financial institution or Government dues. (5) The educational qualifications of the candidate." 20. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the directions issued by this Court are, to a large extent, implemented by the aforesaid Amended Act. It is true that some part of the directions issued by this Court are implemented. Comparative Chart on the basis of Judgment and Ordinance would make the position clear:- Subject Discussion in Provisions Under Impugned Judgment dt.2.5.2002 Ordinance/Amended Act Past criminal Para 48(1) S. 33A(1)(ii) Record. All past convictions/acquittals/ Conviction of any offence (except discharges, whether punished S.8 offence) and sentenced to with imprisonment or fine. imprisonment of one year or more. No such declaration in case of acquittals or discharge. (S.8 offences to be disclosed in nomination paper itself) Pending criminal Para 48(2) S. 33A(1)(j) cases. Prior to six months of filing of Any case in which the candidate nomination, whether the has been accused of any criminal candidate has been accused of offence punishable with any criminal offence punishable imprisonment of two years or with imprisonment of two years more, and charge framed. or more, and charge framed or coganizance taken. Assets and Para 48(3) S.75A liabilities Assets of candidate No such declaration by a candidate contesting the elections) who is contesting election. After spouse and dependants. election, elected candidate is required to furnish information relating to him as well as his spouse and dependent children s assets to the Speaker of the House of People. Para 48(4) No provision is made for the Liabilities, particularly to candidate contesting election. Government And public financial institutions. However, after election, Section 75A (1)(ii) & (iii) provides for elected candidate. Educational Para 48(5) No provision. Qualifications. To be declared. Breach of No direction regarding S.125A Provisions consequences of Creates an offence punishable non-compliance. Para 48(4) No provision is made for the Liabilities, particularly to candidate contesting election. Government And public financial institutions. However, after election, Section 75A (1)(ii) & (iii) provides for elected candidate. Educational Para 48(5) No provision. Qualifications. To be declared. Breach of No direction regarding S.125A Provisions consequences of Creates an offence punishable non-compliance. by imprisonment for six months or fine for failure to furnish affidavit in accordance with S.33A, as well as for falsity or concealment in affidavit or nomination paper. S.75A(5) Wilful contravention of Rules regarding asset disclosure may be treated as breach of privilege of the House. 21. From the aforesaid chart, it is clear that a candidate is not required to disclose (a) the cases in which he is acquitted or discharged of criminal offence(s); (b) his assets and liabilities; and (c) his educational qualification. With regard to assets, it is sought to be contended that under the Act the candidate would be required to disclose the same to the Speaker after being elected. It is also contended that once the person is acquitted or discharged of any criminal offence, there is no necessity of disclosing the same to the voters. Finality of the Judgment:- 22. Firstly, it is to be made clear that the judgment rendered by this Court in Association for Democratic Reforms (Supra) has attained finality. The voters right to know the antecedents of the candidates is based on interpretation of Article 19(1)(a) which provides that all citizens of this country would have fundamental right to "freedom of speech and expression" and this phrase is construed to include fundamental right to know relevant antecedents of the candidate contesting the elections. 23. Further, even though we are not required to justify the directions issued in the aforesaid judgment, to make it abundantly clear that it is not ipse dixit and is based on sound foundation, it can be stated thus- - Democratic Republic is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. - For this, free and fair periodical elections based on adult franchise are must. - For having unpolluted healthy democracy, citizens-voters should be well-informed. 24. So, the foundation of a healthy democracy is to have well-informed citizens-voters. The reason to have right of information with regard to the antecedents of the candidate is that voter can judge and decide in whose favour he should cast his vote. - For having unpolluted healthy democracy, citizens-voters should be well-informed. 24. So, the foundation of a healthy democracy is to have well-informed citizens-voters. The reason to have right of information with regard to the antecedents of the candidate is that voter can judge and decide in whose favour he should cast his vote. It is voter s discretion whether to vote in favour of an illiterate or literate candidate. It is his choice whether to elect a candidate against whom criminal cases for serious or non-serious charges were filed but is acquitted or discharged. He is to consider whether his candidate may or may not have sufficient assets so that he may not be tempted to indulge in unjustified means for accumulating wealth. For assets or liability, the voter may exercise his discretion in favour of a candidate whose liability is minimum and/or there are no over-dues of public financial institution or government dues. From this information it would be, to some extent, easy to verify whether unaccounted money is utilized for contesting election and whether a candidate is contesting election for getting rich or after being elected to what extent he became richer. Exposure to public scrutiny is one of the known means for getting clean and less polluted persons to govern the country. A little man -a citizen - a voter is the master of his vote. He must have necessary information so that he can intelligently decide in favour of a candidate who satisfies his criterion of being elected as M.P. or M.L.A. On occasions, it is stated that we are not having such intelligent voters. This is no excuse. This would be belittling a little citizen/voter. He himself may be illiterate but still he would have guts to decide in whose favour he should cast his vote. In any case, for having free and fair election and not to convert democracy into a mobocracy and mockery or a farce, information to voters is the necessity. 25. Further, in context of Section 8 of the Act, the Law Commission in its Report submitted in 1999 observed as under:- "5.1 The Law Commission had proposed that in respect of offences provided in sub-section (1) (except the offence mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (1), a mere framing of charge should serve as a disqualification. 25. Further, in context of Section 8 of the Act, the Law Commission in its Report submitted in 1999 observed as under:- "5.1 The Law Commission had proposed that in respect of offences provided in sub-section (1) (except the offence mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (1), a mere framing of charge should serve as a disqualification. This provision was sought to be made in addition to existing provision which provides for disqualification arising on account of conviction. The reason for this proposal was that most of the offences mentioned in sub-section (1) are either election offences or serious offences affecting the society and that the persons committing these offences are mostly persons having political clout and influence. Very often these elements are supported by unsocial persons or group of persons, with the result that no independent witness is prepared to come forward to depose against such persons. In such a situation, it is proving extremely difficult to obtain conviction of these persons. It was suggested that inasmuch as charges were framed by a court on the basis of the material placed before it by the prosecution including the material disclosed by the charge-sheet, providing for disqualification on the ground of framing of the charge-sheet would be neither unjust nor unreasonable or arbitrary. " The Law Commission also observed: - 6.3.1. There has been mounting corruption in all walks of public life. People are generally lured to enter politics or contest elections for getting rich overnight. Before allowing people to enter public life the public has a right to know the antecedents of such persons. The existing conditions in which people can freely enter the political arena without demur, especially without the electorate knowing about any details of the assets possessed by the candidate are far from satisfactory. It is essential by law to provide that a candidate seeking election shall furnish the details of all his assets (movable/immovable) possessed by him/her, wife-husband, dependant relations, duly supported by an affidavit. 6.3.2. It is essential by law to provide that a candidate seeking election shall furnish the details of all his assets (movable/immovable) possessed by him/her, wife-husband, dependant relations, duly supported by an affidavit. 6.3.2. Further, in view of recommendations of the Law Commission for debarring a candidate from contesting an election if charges have been framed against him by a Court in respect of offences mentioned in the proposed section 8-B of the Act, it is also necessary for a candidate seeking to contest election to furnish details regarding criminal case, if any, pending against him, including a copy of the FIR/complaint and any order made by the concerned court. 6.3 3. In order to achieve the aforesaid objectives, it is essential to insert a new section 4-A after the existing section 4 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as follows- "4-A. Qualification for membership of the House of the People, the Council of States, Legislature Assembly of a State or Legislative Council. A person shall not be qualified to file his nomination for contesting any election for a seat in the House of the People, the Council of States Legislature Assembly or Legislative Council of a State unless he or she files- (a) a declaration of all his assets (movable/immovable) possessed by him/her, his/her spouse and dependent relations, duly supported by an affidavit, and (b) a declaration as to whether any charge in respect of any offence referred to in section 8B has been framed against him by any Criminal Court." 26. It is to be stated that similar views are expressed in the report submitted in March 2002 by the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution appointed by the Union Government for reviewing the working of the Constitution. Relevant recommendations are as under:- "Successes and Failures 4.4 During the last half-a-century, there have been thirteen general elections to Lok Sabha and a much large number to various State Legislative Assembles. We can take legitimate pride in that these have been successful and generally acknowledged to be free and fair. But, the experience has also brought to fore many distortions, some very serious, generating a deep concern in many quarters. There are constant reference to the unhealthy role of money power, muscle power and mafia power and to criminalisation, corruption, communalism and casteism. But, the experience has also brought to fore many distortions, some very serious, generating a deep concern in many quarters. There are constant reference to the unhealthy role of money power, muscle power and mafia power and to criminalisation, corruption, communalism and casteism. 4.12 Criminalisation- 4.12.2 The Commission recommends that the Representation of the People Act be amended to provide that any person charged with any offence punishable with imprisonment for a maximum term of five years or more, should be disqualified for being chosen as, or for being, a member of Parliament or Legislature of a State on the expiry of a period of one year from the date the charges were framed against him by the Court in that offence and unless cleared during that one year period, he shall continue to remain so disqualified till the conclusion of the trial for that offence. In case a person is convicted of any offence by a court of law and sentenced to imprisonment for six months or more the bar should apply during the period under which the convicted person is undergoing the sentence and for a further period of six years after the completion of the period of the sentence. If any candidate violates this provision, he should be disqualified. Also, if a party puts up such a candidate with knowledge of his antecedents, it should be derecognised and deregistered. 4.12.3. Any person convicted for any heinous crime like murder, rape, smuggling, dacoity etc. should be permanently debarred from contesting for any political office. 4.12.8 The Commission feels that the proposed provision laying down that a person charged with an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to five years or more should be disqualified from contesting elections after the expiry of a period of one year from the date the charges were framed in a Court of law should equally be applicable to sitting members of Parliament and State Legislatures as to any other such person. 4.14 High Cost of Elections and Abuse of Money Power. 4.14.1 One of the most critical problems in the matter of electoral reforms is the hard reality that for contesting an election one needs large amounts of money. The limits of expenditure prescribed are meaningless and almost never adhered to. As a result, it becomes difficult for the good and the honest to enter legislatures. 4.14.1 One of the most critical problems in the matter of electoral reforms is the hard reality that for contesting an election one needs large amounts of money. The limits of expenditure prescribed are meaningless and almost never adhered to. As a result, it becomes difficult for the good and the honest to enter legislatures. It also creates a high degree of compulsion for corruption in the political arena. This has progressively polluted the entire system. Corruption, because it erodes performance, becomes one of the leading reasons for non-performance and compromised governance in the country. The sources of some of the election funds are believed to be unaccounted criminal money in return for protection, unaccounted funds from business groups who expect a high return on this investment, kickbacks commissions on contracts etc. No matter how we look at it, citizens are directly affected because apart from compromised governance, the huge money spent on elections pushes up the cost of everything in the country. It also leads to unbridled corruption and the consequences of wide spread corruption are even more serious than many imagine. Electoral compulsions to funds become the foundation of the whole super structure of corruption. 4.14.3 Transparency in the context of election means both the sources of finance as well as their utilization as are listed out in an audited statement. If the candidates are required to list the sources of their income, this can be checked back by the income tax authorities. The Commission recommends that the political parties as well as individual candidates be made subject to a proper statutory audit of the amounts they spend. These accounts should be monitored through a system of checking and cross-checking through the income-tax returns filed by the candidates, parties and their well-wishers. At the end of the election each candidate should submit an audited statement of expenses under specific heads. The EC should devise specific formats for filing such statements so that fudging of accounts becomes difficult. Also, the audit should not only be mandatory but ii should be enforced by the Election Commission. Any violation or misreporting should be dealt with strongly. 4.14.4 The Commission recommends that every candidate at the time of election must declare his assets and liabilities along with those of his close relatives. Every holder of a political position must declare his assets and liabilities along with those of his close relations annually. Any violation or misreporting should be dealt with strongly. 4.14.4 The Commission recommends that every candidate at the time of election must declare his assets and liabilities along with those of his close relatives. Every holder of a political position must declare his assets and liabilities along with those of his close relations annually. Law should define the term close relatives . 4.14.6 All candidates should be required under law to declare their assets and liabilities by an affidavit and the details so given by them should be made public. Further, as a follow up action, the particulars of the assets and liabilities so given should be audited by a special authority created specifically under law for the purpose. Again, the legislators should be required under law for the purpose. Again, the legislators should be required under law to submit their returns about their liabilities every year and a final statement in this regard at the end of their term of office. Candidates owning Government Dues 4.23 It is recommended that all candidates should be required to clear government dues before their candidatures are accepted. This pertains to payment of taxes and bills and unauthorised occupation of accommodation and availing of telephones and other government facilities to which they are no longer entitled. The fact that matters regarding Government dues in respect of the candidate are pending before a Court of Law should be no excuse. 27. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel has drawn our attention to the Ethics Manual for Members, Officers and Employees of the U.S. House of Representatives , which inter alia provides as under- Financial interests and investments of Members and employees, as well as those of candidates for the House of Representatives, may present conflicts of interest with official duties. Members and employees need not, however, divest themselves of assets upon assuming their positions, nor must Members disqualify themselves from voting on issues that generally affect their personal financial interests. Instead, public financial disclosure provides a means of monitoring and deterring conflicts. All Members, officers, and employees are prohibited from improperly using their official positions for personal gain. Members, officers, candidates, and certain employees must file annual Financial Disclosure Statements, summarizing financial information concerning themselves, their spouses, and dependent children. Such statements must indicate outside compensation, holdings and business transactions, generally for the calendar year preceding the filing date. All Members, officers, and employees are prohibited from improperly using their official positions for personal gain. Members, officers, candidates, and certain employees must file annual Financial Disclosure Statements, summarizing financial information concerning themselves, their spouses, and dependent children. Such statements must indicate outside compensation, holdings and business transactions, generally for the calendar year preceding the filing date. Who must File The following individuals must file Financial Disclosure Statements: - l Members of the House of Representatives; l Candidates for the House of Representatives; When to File Candidates who raise or spend more than $5,000 for their campaigns must file within 30 days of doing so, or by May 15, whichever is later, but in any event at least 30 days prior to the elections in which they run. Termination reports must be filed within 30 days of leaving government employment by Members officers, and employees who file Financial Disclosure Statements. Policies Underlying Disclosure Members, officers, and certain employees must annually disclose personal financial interests, including investments, income, and liabilities. Financial disclosure provisions were enacted to monitor and to deter possible conflicts of interest due to outside financial holdings. Proposals for divestiture of potentially conflicting assets and mandatory disqualification of Members from voting rejected as impractical or unreasonable. Such disqualification could result in the disenfranchisement of a Member s entire constituency on particular issues. A Member may often have a community of interests with his constituency, may arguably have been elected because of and to serve these common interests, and thus would be ineffective in representing the real interests of his constituents if he were disqualified from voting on issues touching those matters of mutual concern. In rare instances, the House Rule on abstaining from voting may apply where a direct personal interest in a matter exists. At the other extreme, a conflict of interest becomes corruption when an official uses his position of influence to enhance his personal financial interests. Between these extremes are those ambiguous circumstances which may create a real or potential conflict of interest. The problem is identifying those instances in which an official allows his personal economic interests to impair his independence of judgment in the conduct of his public duties. The House has required public financial disclosure by rule since 1968 and by statute since 1978. The problem is identifying those instances in which an official allows his personal economic interests to impair his independence of judgment in the conduct of his public duties. The House has required public financial disclosure by rule since 1968 and by statute since 1978. Specific Disclosure Requirements The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 mandated annual financial disclosure by all senior Federal personnel, including all Members and some employees of the House. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 totally revamped these provisions and condensed what had been different requirements for each branch into one uniform title covering the entire Federal Government. Financial Disclosure Statements must indicate outside compensation, holdings, and business transactions, generally for the calendar year preceding the filing date. In all instances, filers may disclose addition information or explanation at their discretion." 28. At this stage, it would be worth-while to note some observations made by the Committee on State Funding of Elections headed by Shri Indrajit Gupta as Chairman and others, which submitted its report in 1998. In the concluding portion, it has mentioned as under- Conclusion:- 1. Before concluding, the Committee cannot help expressing its considered view that its recommendations being limited in nature and confined to only one of the aspects of the electoral reforms may bring about only some cosmetic changes in the electoral sphere. What is needed, however, is an immediate overhauling of the electoral process whereby elections are freed from evil influence of all vitiating factors, particularly, criminalisation of politics. It goes without saying that money power and muscle power go together to vitiate the electoral process and it is their combined effect which is sullying the purity of electoral contests and effecting free and fair elections. Meaningful electoral reforms in other spheres of electoral activity are also urgently needed if the present recommendations of the Committee are to serve the intended useful purpose. 29. From the aforesaid reports of the Law Commission, National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, Conclusion drawn in the report of Shri Indrajit Gupta and Ethics Manual applicable in an advance democratic country, it is apparent that for saving the democracy from the evil influence of criminalisation of politics, for saving the election from muscle and money power, for having true democracy and for controlling corruption in politics, the candidate contesting the election should be asked to disclose his antecedents including assets and liabilities. Thereafter, it is for the voters to decide in whose favour he should cast his vote. 30. Further, we would state that this Court has construed freedom of speech and expression in various decisions and on basis of tests laid therein, directions were issued. In short, this aspect is discussed in paragraphs 31, 32 and 33 of our earlier judgment which read as under:- "31. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain and Others [ (1975) 4 SCC 428 ], the Constitution Bench considered a question - whether privilege can be claimed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under Section 123 of the Evidence Act in respect of what has been described for the sake of brevity to be the Blue Book summoned from the Government of Uttar Pradesh and certain documents summoned from the Superintendent of Police, Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh? The Court observed that "the right to know which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary, when secrecy is claimed for transactions which can, at any rate, have no repercussion on public security". The Court pertinently observed as under: - "In a Government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing...." 32. In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. and Others etc. v. Union of India and others [(1985) 1 SCC 641], this Court dealt with the validity of customs duty on the newsprint in context of Article 19(1)(a). The Court observed (in para 32) thus: "The purpose of the press is to advance the public interest by publishing facts and opinions without which a democratic country cannot make responsible judgments..." 33. The Court further referred (in para 35) to the following observations made by this Court in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras ( 1950 SCR 594 ): - "...(The freedom) lay at the foundation of all democratic organisations, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the processes of popular government, is possible. The Court further referred (in para 35) to the following observations made by this Court in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras ( 1950 SCR 594 ): - "...(The freedom) lay at the foundation of all democratic organisations, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the processes of popular government, is possible. A freedom of such amplitude might involve risks of abuse... (But) "it is better to leave a few of its noxious branches to their luxuriant growth, than, by pruning them away, to injure the vigour of those yielding the proper fruits." Again in paragraph 68, the Court observed:- "....The public interest in freedom of discussion (of which the freedom of the press is one aspect) stems from the requirement that members of a democratic society should be sufficiently informed that they may influence intelligently the decisions which may affect themselves (Per Lord Simon of Glaisdale in Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers Ltd. (1973) 3 All ER 54). Freedom of expression, as learned writers have observed, has four broad social purposes to serve: (i) it helps an individual to attain self-fulfillment, (ii) it assists in the discovery of truth, (iii) it strengthens the capacity of an individual in participating in decision-making and (iv) it provides a mechanism by which it would be possible to establish a reasonable balance between stability and social change. All members of society should be able to form their own beliefs and communicate them freely to others. In sum, the fundamental principle involved here is the people's right to know. Freedom of speech and expression should, therefore, receive a generous support from all those who believe in the participation of people in the administration..." 31. Even with regard to telecasting of events such as cricket, football and hockey etc., this Court in Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal [ (1995) 2 SCC 161 ] held that "the right to freedom of speech and expression also includes right to educate, to inform and to entertain and also the right to be educated, informed and entertained." The Court further held as under:- "82. True democracy cannot exist unless all citizens have a right to participate in the affairs of the polity of the country. True democracy cannot exist unless all citizens have a right to participate in the affairs of the polity of the country. The right to participate in the affairs of the country is meaningless unless the citizens are well informed on all sides of the issues, in respect of which they are called upon to express their views. One-sided information, disinformation, misinformation and non information all equally create an uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce when medium of information is monopolised either by a partisan central authority or by private individuals or oligarchic organisations. This is particularly so in a country like ours where about 65 per cent of the population is illiterate and hardly 1½ per cent of the population has an access to the print media which is not subject to pre-censorship....." 32. The aforesaid passage leaves no doubt that right to participate by casting vote at the time of election would be meaningless unless the voters are well informed about all sides of the issues, in respect of which they are called upon to express their views by casting their votes. Disinformation, misinformation, non-information all equally create an uninformed citizenry which would finally make democracy a mobocracy and farce. On this aspect, no further discussion is required. However, we would narrate some observations made by Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India [1981 Supp. SCC 87], while dealing with the contention of right to secrecy that - "there can be little doubt that exposure to public gaze and scrutiny is one of the surest means of achieving a clean and healthy administration". Further, it has been explicitly and lucidly held thus:-- "64. Now it is obvious from the Constitution that we have adopted a democratic form of Government. Where a society has chosen to accept democracy as its credit faith, it is elementary that the citizens ought to know what their government is doing. The citizens have a right to decide by whom and by what rules they shall be governed and they are entitled to call on those who govern on their behalf to account for their conduct. No democratic Government can survive without accountability and the basic postulate of accountability is that the people should have information about the functioning of the government. No democratic Government can survive without accountability and the basic postulate of accountability is that the people should have information about the functioning of the government. It is only if people know how government is functioning that they can fulfil the role which democracy assigns to them and make democracy a really effective participatory democracy. "Knowledge" said James Madison, "will for ever govern ignorance and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm 'themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of obtaining it, is but a prologue to a force or tragedy or perhaps both." The citizens' right to know the facts, the true facts, about the administration of the country is thus one of the pillars of a democratic State. And that is why the demand for openness in the government is increasingly growing in different parts of the world. 65. The demand for openness in the government is based principally on two reasons. It is now widely accepted that democracy does not consist merely in people exercising their franchise once in five years to choose their rules and, once the vote is cast, then retiring in passivity and not taking any interest in the government. Today it is common ground that democracy has a made positive content and its orchestration has to be continuous and pervasive. This means inter alia that people should not only cast intelligent and rational votes but should also exercise sound judgment on the conduct of the government and the merits of public policies, so that democracy does not remain merely sporadic exercise in voting but becomes a continuous process of government - an attitude and habit of mind. But this important role people can fulfil in a democracy only if it is an open government where there is full access to information in regard to the functioning of the government." It was further observed "67. ....The concept of an open government is the direct emanation from the right to know which seems to be implicit in the right of free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a)....The approach of the court must be to attenuate the area of secrecy as much as possible consistently with the requirement of public interest, bearing in mind all the time that disclosure also serves an important aspect of public interest. It is in the context of this background that we must proceed to interpret Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act." 33. From the aforesaid discussion it can be held that it is expected by all concerned and as has been laid down by various decisions of this Court that for survival of true democracy, the voter must be aware of the antecedents of his candidate. Voter has to caste intelligent and rational vote according to his own criteria. A well informed voter is the foundation of democratic structure. That information to a voter, who is the citizen of this country, is one facet of the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India- 34. Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Kirit N. Raval, learned Solicitor General submitted that the question involved in these petitions is a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution and, therefore, the matter may be referred to a Bench consisting of Five Judges. 35. In our view, this contention is totally misconceived. Article 19(1)(a) is interpreted in numerous judgments rendered by this Court. After considering various decisions and following tests laid therein, this Court in Association for Democratic Reforms (supra) arrived at the conclusion that for survival of the democracy, right of the voter to know antecedents of a candidate would be part and parcel of his fundamental right. It would be the basis for free and fair election which is a basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, the question relating to interpretation of Article 19(1)(a) is concluded and there is no other question which requires interpretation of Constitution. 36. Dealing with the similar contention. Five Judge Bench of this Court in State of Jammu & Kashmir and others v. Thakur Ganga Singh and another [ (1960) 2 SCR 346 ] succinctly held thus:- "What does interpretation of a provision mean interpretation is the method by which the true sense or the meaning of the word is understood. The question of interpretation can arise only if two or more possible constructions are sought to be placed on a provision- one party suggesting one construction and the other a different one. The question of interpretation can arise only if two or more possible constructions are sought to be placed on a provision- one party suggesting one construction and the other a different one. But where the parties agree on the true interpretation of a provision or do not raise any question in respect thereof, it is not possible to hold that the case involves any question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. On an interpretation of Art. 14, a series of decisions of this Court evolved the doctrine of classification. As we have pointed out, at no stage of the proceedings either the correctness of the interpretation of Art. 14 or the principles governing the doctrine of classification have been questioned by either of the parties. Indeed accepting the said doctrine, the appellants contended that there was a valid classification under the rule while the respondents argued contra. For citation: 2003(3) Supreme 93 = 2003(2) JT 528 = (2003) 4 SCC 399 = AIR 2003 SC 2363 = 2003(3) ACE 686