New Delhi: The Supreme Court on March 13 struck down a major portion of Electoral Reforms Act, saying candidates have to declare their assets and all pending criminal cases against them at the time of filing nominations.

A three-judge Bench comprising justice M B Shah, justice P V Reddi and justice D M Dharmadhikari, gave separate but concurring judgement, holding that the amendment to Section 33 B of Representation of Peoples Act was "illegal and null and void".

The Bench said the attempt by government of India to introduce the Electoral Reforms Law was half-hearted and not enough to stop money and muscle power from playing a role in the election.

The Bench said the Election Commission (EC) has to issue a new guideline for implementation of the present judgement prospectively, by which the candidates have to declare all pending criminal cases against them, their assets and liabilities and that of their spouses.

The Bench said legislature had no authority to ask the instrumentality of the state to disobey the Supreme Court order.

The Apex Court had on May 2, 2002 given a direction that the voters had the right to know the criminal antecedents, as well as the liabilities and assets of the candidates, which would help them to choose the right one at the time of election.

The court said the Electoral Reforms Act enacted by Parliament last year was beyond its legislative competence, as the Law says voters did not have the right to know about the candidates before they cast their votes.

The court said the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court on May 2 has attained finality and could not have been sidetracked by the amendment to the Representation of People's Act (RPA).

The Bench said the width and amplitude of the rights of voters to know about the antecedents of the candidates was different from their right to information from media.

The freedom to vote was equal to right of expression in terms of voting to the common man and hence this new Legislation, which curtailed this right could be held to be violative of Article 19, which guarantees right to freedom of expression.

It said Section 33 B of the amended Act did not pass the test of Constitutionality, as it imposed a blanket ban on dissemination of information to the voters about the candidates.

PTI