The voter's right to know is central to free and fair elections. Analyse the role of the judiciary in giving effect to this right.

Voting is a form of expression. If voters know nothing about the candidates, they are choosing blind. The Supreme Court has read the voter's right to know into Article 19(1)(a) [1]. Over two decades it has turned this principle into a right that can be enforced. It has created the right, widened it and given voters the means to enforce it.

1. Creating the right

• ADR (2002): The Court directed the ECI to obtain disclosure of each candidate's criminal cases, assets and educational qualifications [1].
• PUCL (2003): The Court reaffirmed these directions after Parliament tried to dilute them [1]. The ECI then made the affidavit compulsory through its order on the declaration of candidates' details [2].

2. Widening its scope

• Criminalisation: In Public Interest Foundation (2018) and Rambabu Singh Thakur (2020), the Court required candidates and parties to publicise criminal records. Parties must also explain why they chose such candidates.
• Party funding: The Electoral Bonds judgment (2024) struck down anonymous donations because they violated the voter's right to information [1].

3. Giving voters the means to enforce it

• Citizen standing: In 2026, a Bench of Justices Datta and Nagu held that any voter can file a complaint under Section 125-A RPA against a false or concealed affidavit. Section 195 CrPC does not limit this to public servants [3].
• This means voters no longer have to rely on Returning Officers. ROs cannot reject a nomination because of a false affidavit; they can only file a complaint themselves [4].

4. Limits of what courts can do

• Weak penalty: The maximum punishment is six months' jail, a fine, or both, and a conviction does not disqualify the candidate [5].
• Separation of powers: Courts can order disclosure. Disqualification and harsher punishment need Parliament to change the law.
• Risk of misuse: Rivals may file frivolous complaints. Because the offence is non-cognisable, a magistrate must examine each complaint first, which filters out weak ones [3].

The judiciary has created, widened and enforced the voter's right to know. It has moved electoral accountability from the state alone towards citizens as well. Parliament should now complete this work. The Law Commission's 244th Report recommended making a false-affidavit conviction a ground for disqualification, setting a two-year minimum sentence, treating false affidavits as a corrupt practice and holding day-to-day trials [5]. These steps would make the informed vote promised by Article 19(1)(a) fully real.