{"id":90897,"date":"2025-06-01T10:39:53","date_gmt":"2025-06-01T10:39:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/?p=90897"},"modified":"2025-06-01T10:39:53","modified_gmt":"2025-06-01T10:39:53","slug":"the-judgment-of-the-supreme-court-in-peoples-union-for-civil-liberti","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-judgment-of-the-supreme-court-in-peoples-union-for-civil-liberti\/","title":{"rendered":"The Judgment of the Supreme Court in *Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberti"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Judgment of the Supreme Court in *Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberties* v. Union of India 2004 is related to which of the following ?<\/p>\n

[amp_mcq option1=”Right to Shelter” option2=”Right against Custodial violence” option3=”Right to Information” option4=”Right to Speedy trial” correct=”option3″]<\/p>\n

\n
\n
This question was previously asked in<\/div>\n
UPSC CAPF – 2023<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Download PDF<\/a>Attempt Online<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
The Supreme Court judgment in *Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)* v. Union of India in 2004 is a landmark case regarding electoral reforms in India. The Court directed the Election Commission of India to mandate candidates contesting elections to disclose their criminal antecedents, financial assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications. This judgment upheld the right of voters to know about the candidates, which is considered an intrinsic part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and is closely related to the Right to Information needed for informed voting.<\/section>\n
The PUCL 2004 case significantly enhanced transparency in the electoral process by enforcing mandatory disclosure requirements for candidates, thereby empowering voters with essential information. This ruling reinforced the principle that the right to vote includes the right to informed choice, linking it to the broader Right to Information.<\/section>\n
Other options are related to different important Supreme Court judgments: Right to Shelter (e.g., Olga Tellis v. BMC), Right against Custodial Violence (e.g., D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal), and Right to Speedy Trial (e.g., Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar).<\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Judgment of the Supreme Court in *Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberties* v. Union of India 2004 is related to which of the following ? [amp_mcq option1=”Right to Shelter” option2=”Right against Custodial violence” option3=”Right to Information” option4=”Right to Speedy trial” correct=”option3″] This question was previously asked in UPSC CAPF – 2023 Download PDFAttempt Online The … <\/p>\n

Detailed SolutionThe Judgment of the Supreme Court in *Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberti<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1085],"tags":[1105,1186,1099],"class_list":["post-90897","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-upsc-capf","tag-1105","tag-fundamental-rights","tag-indian-polity-and-governance","no-featured-image-padding"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Judgment of the Supreme Court in *Peoples' Union for Civil Liberti<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Supreme Court judgment in *Peoples' Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)* v. Union of India in 2004 is a landmark case regarding electoral reforms in India. The Court directed the Election Commission of India to mandate candidates contesting elections to disclose their criminal antecedents, financial assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications. This judgment upheld the right of voters to know about the candidates, which is considered an intrinsic part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and is closely related to the Right to Information needed for informed voting. The PUCL 2004 case significantly enhanced transparency in the electoral process by enforcing mandatory disclosure requirements for candidates, thereby empowering voters with essential information. This ruling reinforced the principle that the right to vote includes the right to informed choice, linking it to the broader Right to Information.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-judgment-of-the-supreme-court-in-peoples-union-for-civil-liberti\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Judgment of the Supreme Court in *Peoples' Union for Civil Liberti\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Supreme Court judgment in *Peoples' Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)* v. Union of India in 2004 is a landmark case regarding electoral reforms in India. The Court directed the Election Commission of India to mandate candidates contesting elections to disclose their criminal antecedents, financial assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications. This judgment upheld the right of voters to know about the candidates, which is considered an intrinsic part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and is closely related to the Right to Information needed for informed voting. The PUCL 2004 case significantly enhanced transparency in the electoral process by enforcing mandatory disclosure requirements for candidates, thereby empowering voters with essential information. This ruling reinforced the principle that the right to vote includes the right to informed choice, linking it to the broader Right to Information.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-judgment-of-the-supreme-court-in-peoples-union-for-civil-liberti\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MCQ and Quiz for Exams\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-06-01T10:39:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"rawan239\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"rawan239\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Judgment of the Supreme Court in *Peoples' Union for Civil Liberti","description":"The Supreme Court judgment in *Peoples' Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)* v. Union of India in 2004 is a landmark case regarding electoral reforms in India. The Court directed the Election Commission of India to mandate candidates contesting elections to disclose their criminal antecedents, financial assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications. This judgment upheld the right of voters to know about the candidates, which is considered an intrinsic part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and is closely related to the Right to Information needed for informed voting. The PUCL 2004 case significantly enhanced transparency in the electoral process by enforcing mandatory disclosure requirements for candidates, thereby empowering voters with essential information. This ruling reinforced the principle that the right to vote includes the right to informed choice, linking it to the broader Right to Information.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-judgment-of-the-supreme-court-in-peoples-union-for-civil-liberti\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Judgment of the Supreme Court in *Peoples' Union for Civil Liberti","og_description":"The Supreme Court judgment in *Peoples' Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)* v. Union of India in 2004 is a landmark case regarding electoral reforms in India. The Court directed the Election Commission of India to mandate candidates contesting elections to disclose their criminal antecedents, financial assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications. This judgment upheld the right of voters to know about the candidates, which is considered an intrinsic part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and is closely related to the Right to Information needed for informed voting. The PUCL 2004 case significantly enhanced transparency in the electoral process by enforcing mandatory disclosure requirements for candidates, thereby empowering voters with essential information. This ruling reinforced the principle that the right to vote includes the right to informed choice, linking it to the broader Right to Information.","og_url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-judgment-of-the-supreme-court-in-peoples-union-for-civil-liberti\/","og_site_name":"MCQ and Quiz for Exams","article_published_time":"2025-06-01T10:39:53+00:00","author":"rawan239","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"rawan239","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-judgment-of-the-supreme-court-in-peoples-union-for-civil-liberti\/","url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-judgment-of-the-supreme-court-in-peoples-union-for-civil-liberti\/","name":"The Judgment of the Supreme Court in *Peoples' Union for Civil Liberti","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-06-01T10:39:53+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-01T10:39:53+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/5807dafeb27d2ec82344d6cbd6c3d209"},"description":"The Supreme Court judgment in *Peoples' Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)* v. Union of India in 2004 is a landmark case regarding electoral reforms in India. The Court directed the Election Commission of India to mandate candidates contesting elections to disclose their criminal antecedents, financial assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications. This judgment upheld the right of voters to know about the candidates, which is considered an intrinsic part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and is closely related to the Right to Information needed for informed voting. The PUCL 2004 case significantly enhanced transparency in the electoral process by enforcing mandatory disclosure requirements for candidates, thereby empowering voters with essential information. This ruling reinforced the principle that the right to vote includes the right to informed choice, linking it to the broader Right to Information.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-judgment-of-the-supreme-court-in-peoples-union-for-civil-liberti\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-judgment-of-the-supreme-court-in-peoples-union-for-civil-liberti\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/the-judgment-of-the-supreme-court-in-peoples-union-for-civil-liberti\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"UPSC CAPF","item":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/category\/upsc-capf\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"The Judgment of the Supreme Court in *Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberti"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#website","url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/","name":"MCQ and Quiz for Exams","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/5807dafeb27d2ec82344d6cbd6c3d209","name":"rawan239","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/761a7274f9cce048fa5b921221e7934820d74514df93ef195a9d22af0c1c9001?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/761a7274f9cce048fa5b921221e7934820d74514df93ef195a9d22af0c1c9001?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"rawan239"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com"],"url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/author\/rawan239\/"}]}},"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/90897","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=90897"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/90897\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=90897"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=90897"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=90897"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}