Not necessary for voters to know every detail of politicians’ assets: SC
Regarding the disclosure of assets, the SC clarified that there is no strict rule as to when non-disclosure of a particular asset will amount to a substantial defect.
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court (SC) emphasized that electoral candidates in India are not required to disclose every detail of their assets, striking a balance between voters’ right to know and candidates’ right to privacy.
The verdict, delivered by a bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, addressed a case where the Gauhati High Court had invalidated the election of independent candidate Karikho Kri to Arunachal Pradesh’s assembly. Kri was disqualified for not declaring three vehicles registered under his wife and son’s names.
The SC overturned the high court’s decision, stating that the value of the undisclosed vehicles was negligible compared to Kri’s total assets, which amounted to Rs 8.4 crore. The court asserted that non-disclosure of such assets did not constitute an attempt to unduly influence voters.
Justice Kumar, writing for the bench, stated, “Non-disclosure of every asset owned by a candidate will not amount to a defect, much less, a defect of a substantial character.” The SC highlighted that candidates need not disclose every item of movable property unless it significantly impacts their candidacy or lifestyle.
The ruling underscored the importance of balancing voters’ right to know with candidates’ right to privacy. The bench stated, “A candidate is not required to lay his life out threadbare for examination by the electorate,” emphasizing that a candidate’s right to privacy must be respected.
Regarding the disclosure of assets, the SC clarified that there is no strict rule as to when non-disclosure of a particular asset will amount to a substantial defect. The court provided an example, stating that while high-value assets like luxury watches must be disclosed, the omission of low-value items may not invalidate the election.
The SC also addressed breaches of constitutional or statutory provisions, stating that mere non-compliance would not result in invalidating elections unless it materially affected the outcome.
The SC’s ruling reaffirms the importance of balancing transparency and privacy in electoral processes. It clarifies that candidates are not obligated to disclose every minute detail of their assets, and non-disclosure does not necessarily invalidate an election.
This verdict is likely to influence future debates and legal interpretations concerning asset disclosure requirements for electoral candidates in India.
