democracy

Trending Today ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 The Role of Intellectual Property in Promoting Innovation in India Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bond Scheme as Unconstitutional for Undermining Transparency and Democratic Principles on dated 15th February, 2024. Historic Verdict: Supreme Court Overturns 1998 Ruling P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), Ends Immunity for Lawmakers Taking Bribes for Votes on 4th March, 2024 Supreme Court Overrules Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd The State or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the “rules of the game” insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria Validity of LMV Driving License for Transport Vehicles Minority Status of educational institutions not affected by statute, date of establishment, or non-minority administration JAMMU AND KASHMIR POST ARTICLE 370 ANIMAL CRUELTY CONTROVERSY: HOW THE 2023 SCC DECISION AFFECT JALIKATTU ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 13 Mar 2025 Table of contents OVERVIEW OF THE CASE OF ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE CASE KEY PLAYERS INVOLVED IN THE CASE LEGAL ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY BOTH SIDES ANALYSIS OF THE SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN 2024 SSC ONLINE SC 312 IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE DECISION ON DEMOCRACY AND POLITICS IN INDIA CRITICISMS AND CONTROVERSIES SURROUNDING CONCLUSION: FINAL THOUGHTS ON THE ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER V UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS SSC ONLINE SC VIDEO OF SUPREME COURT VERDICT REFERENCES OVERVIEW OF THE CASE OF ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS The case of Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) v. UOI was a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by ADR, a non-political arrangement occupied towards transparency and accountability in Indian elections. The basic objective concerning this case search out challenge Section 33B (1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RPA), that admitted governmental bodies to withhold facts about their capital beginnings, containing gifts taken from alien companies or things. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE CASE The petition was ground for one Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), two non-administration arrangements active towards electoral corrects in the country. The case generally disputed sure supplying of the Representation of People Act, 1951, that admitted political bodies to accept unknown gifts from things or associations through Electoral Bonds. This practice produced concerns about transparency and responsibility in governmental capital, that are critical details of a fair and democratic electing process. The culture chief until this case may be tracked back to the approvals made for one Indrajit Gupta Committee Report on State Funding of Elections in 1998.In order to address these issues, the commission submitted measures to a degree state capital of elections, revelation of electing expenditures by competitors, and better investigation over choosing loan. In line with these pieces of advice, Parliament passed important corrections to the Representation of People Act in 2002, individual being Section 29B (1) that made acquainted a new supplying admitting Electoral Bonds as an additional fashion for making gifts to governmental bodies. However, ADR and PUCL discussed that this correction was illegal as it went against fundamental law like transparency honestly existence, free and fair voting process sure-fire under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 14 respectively. They more argued that unknown gifts manage conceivably admit illegal services laundering actions through structure associations or external systems outside any responsibility. In reaction, the principal management protected their resolution to introduce Electoral Bonds by way of to advance gifts through legal and obvious channels. Thus, this case nurtured important questions about the balance between secrecy and transparency in electing capital, and allure affect fair and self-governing elections in India. The outcome concerning this case has the potential to shape future tactics had connection with voting loan and advance greater responsibility between governmental bodies and contenders. KEY PLAYERS INVOLVED IN THE CASE The case of Association for Democratic Reforms and Another v Union of India and so forth SSC Online SC has collect significant consideration and bred main questions about the duty of services in Indian campaigning. At the heart of this milestone case, there are various key performers the one has existed complicated in differing capacities. Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR): ADR is a non-political institution that was made in 1999 accompanying a dream to advance transparency and accountability in Indian government. Union of India: The Union of India refers to the main administration in this place case as it arrange accomplishing standards related to governmental capital and choosing processes. The Ministry of Law & Justice shows the joining before the Supreme Court as respondent no.1. Election Commission of India (ECI): In allure answer to this case, ECI contended that binding announcement grant permission bring about harassment or revenge against benefactors by rival governmental bodies. Law Commission: Law Commission refers to an executive party start apiece Government periodically burdened accompanying learning allowable issues had connection with choosing laws containing campaign finance rules. 5.Member Secretaries – Screen Scrutiny Committee (SSC) & Financial Affairs Subcommittee (FAS): These juries were comprised by ECI later taking afflictions against sure politicians and person in government who makes laws the one had purportedly taken different offerings outside prior consent from ECI. 6.Candidates/Petitioners: The main petitioners in this place case are ADR and Common Cause, presented by advocate Prashant Bhushan. The top court has admitted six additional individual competitors to intervene in the case, disputing their right to see the beginnings of capital taken by governmental parties. LEGAL ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY BOTH SIDES The permissible battle betwixt the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Union of India, and so forth, concerning connected to the internet examinations transported apiece Staff Selection Commission (SSC) has been a continuous issue. On individual help, ADR contends that the use of science in administering exams poses a risk to bidders’ data freedom and solitude. ADR’s debate is established Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, that guarantees similarity