Union of India v. ADR (2002) — the voters' right to know

Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294, decided 2 May 2002. The Supreme Court partly allowed the Union's appeal and modified the Delhi High Court's directions, substituting its own: the Election Commission was directed, under Article 324, to call for an affidavit from every candidate disclosing criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities, and educational qualifications. A voter's right to know is part of free speech under Article 19(1)(a); a vote cast in ignorance is not a free and informed vote.

The appeal was partly allowed and the High Court's directions were modified. The Court substituted its own directions, with the Election Commission to draw up the norms and modalities to give effect to them within two months. The Election Commission was to require every candidate to furnish — and to publicise — (i) criminal cases pending, past acquittals and convictions, (ii) the assets and liabilities of the candidate, spouse and dependents, and (iii) educational qualifications. The follow-up ruling, *PUCL v. Union of India*, (2003) 4 SCC 399, carried these directions into statutory affidavits under the election law.

Right of voters to know the antecedents of candidates (criminal, educational, financial) is a facet of the right to free expression under Article 19(1)(a).

voter rights, Article 19(1)(a), candidates, ADR

• ADR v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds) (SC 2024)

• State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (SC 1975)
• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (Judges' Transfer) (SC 1981)
• ADR v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds) (SC 2024)
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (SC 2017)
• Inspection of records under RTI — CIC guidance (CIC 2013)

This ruling predates the RTI Act by three years, and it is one of the pillars the Act stands on. When the Court called information about candidates a *fundamental* right, secrecy-by-default lost its constitutional footing for everything a citizen needs to hold power to account. The RTI Act 2005 then made the same principle enforceable against every public authority: ask in writing, get an answer in thirty days, appeal if refused.

• Your RTI application does not need a lawyer — this right is yours directly, not through a court.
• Framing matters — ask for a named record, not a conclusion, exactly as ADR asked for specific categories of candidate information.

• All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus
• All landmark rulings
• Full case-law search
• Case-Law Database — overview
• PIO RTI Reply Guide
• The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated
• The RTI Playbook book
• Full judgment — Indian Kanoon

Editorial summary · bench, citation and judgment link corrected 27 August 2026 after primary-source verification.