RESURGENCE INDIA versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR.

RESURGENCE INDIA versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR.

Affidavit with particulars left blank is not a valid disclosure and fails to effectuate the citizen's right to know under Article 19(1)(a). Returning Officers may reject nomination papers where affidavits are incomplete, and Para 73 of the PUCL judgment does not prevent this. Rejection must be exercised sparingly but candidates must not leave affidavits blank; they must indicate 'NIL' or 'Not Applicable' where relevant. Subsequent prosecution for the same default is not warranted if the nomination paper is rejected.

Parties
Petitioner: Resurgence India; Respondent: Election Commission of India & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) No. 121 of 2008 / Judgment
Outcome
Writ petition disposed with directions.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Speech and Expression, Right to Know, Scrutiny of Nomination Papers, Affidavit Requirements for Candidates
Constitutional Law Election Law Freedom of Speech and Expression Right to Know Scrutiny of Nomination Papers Affidavit Requirements for Candidates

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Resurgence India

Petitioner

Election Commission of India & Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) No. 121 of 2008 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Returning Officers have power to reject nomination papers for affidavits filed with blank particulars
  2. 2 Whether filing of affidavits with blanks violates citizen's fundamental right to know under Article 19(1)(a)
  3. 3 Whether Para 73 of People's Union for Civil Liberties judgment bars rejection of nomination papers for incomplete affidavits

Ratio Decidendi

Affidavit with particulars left blank is not a valid disclosure and fails to effectuate the citizen's right to know under Article 19(1)(a). Returning Officers may reject nomination papers where affidavits are incomplete, and Para 73 of the PUCL judgment does not prevent this. Rejection must be exercised sparingly but candidates must not leave affidavits blank; they must indicate 'NIL' or 'Not Applicable' where relevant. Subsequent prosecution for the same default is not warranted if the nomination paper is rejected.

Court Disposition

Writ petition disposed with directions.

Orders

  • Returning Officers are obligated to ensure affidavits with nomination papers are complete; affidavits with blank particulars may be rejected.
  • Candidates must explicitly mark 'NIL', 'Not Applicable', or 'Not known' where relevant, not leave blanks.