Abstract:
Last year in the month of SeptemberSupreme Court directed that all contesting candidates with previous convictions and pending cases would have to publicize the details three times in the month before the upcoming any local, state or national elections in newspapers and on television.As well as Supreme Court also instructed Political parties to do so same and display the relevant facts on their respective websites. While illustrating the concept on Swaraj as in self-rule, it does not mean merely indigenous or rule by any authoritarian or we can say king. Rather, ‘self-Rule’ suggests control by the people and rule in accordance with their free will. In other words, ‘self’is the entire people and ‘rule’ is governance as per their advice/ instructions. In the democracy, or even in the concept of swaraj (self-rule) peoplecannot be left to be mute spectators as their representatives and truedemocracy goes awry, transparency in the electoral process isnecessary. This judgment by theSupreme Court sought toaccomplish this by bringing political parties within the purview ofthe people and media. In this paper, significance of this judgment to the concept of Lokmanya Tilak’sconcept of Swaraj, and how the need fortransparency and accountability in the electoralprocess, especiallyin the candidate criminal records is emphasized, and it’s explains how Swaraj (self-Rule) basically determines the people’s rights to know as well as the amendmentsmadein Form-26 (affidavit by candidate) of the Election commission of India in pursuanceof the directionsin the judgmentsof the Hon'bleSupremeCourtin WritPetition(C)No. 784of 2015(LokPrahariVs.Unionof India& Others)andWritPetition(Civil)No. 536of 2011(PublicInterestFoundation&Ors.Vs. Unionof India&Anr.).
