The Supreme Court’s order on disclosure of movable assets owned by candidates upholds the voters’ right to know and there should be no fears regarding the transparency in the electoral process, experts said on Wednesday.
The apex court on Tuesday held it was not mandatory for candidates contesting elections to disclose each and every moveable property they owned in their affidavits unless they were of substantial value or reflected a luxurious lifestyle, asserting that the voter’s right to know is not absolute.
A bench comprising justices Anirudhha Bose and Sanjay Kumar set aside the July 17, 2023 judgment of the Itanagar bench of the Gauhati High Court and upheld the 2019 election of Karikho Kri, an independent member of legislative assembly (MLA) from Tezu assembly constituency in Arunachal Pradesh.
In 2019, three candidates contested the Tezu assembly election. Independent candidate Karikho Kri emerged victorious with 7,538 votes, while Mohesh Chai of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) secured 7,383 votes and Nuney Tayang of the Indian National Congress (INC) secured 1,088 votes.
Tayang later filed a case against Kri. He claimed that Kri had not declared possession of three vehicles by his dependents: Kinetic Zing Scooty, Maruti Omni Van and TVS Star City Motorcycle.
“Such non-disclosure cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as an attempt on his part to unduly influence the voters,” the apex court ruled.
According to Mayank Grover, partner at Partner, Singhania & Partners LLP, the judgement recognises the “importance of transparency in electoral processes but acknowledges that not all aspects of a candidate’s personal life warrant disclosure, especially if they are of minimal significance to the candidacy”.
Speaking to Business Standard, Maj Gen (Retd) Anil Verma, head of the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) said that he found logic to the arguments given by the apex court.
“The right of the voter is still being upheld,” he said.
“There should be no fears regarding transparency in the electoral process since the court has cleverly caveated the judgment in this fashion,” said Gauri Subramanium, an advocate in the Supreme Court. She added that it had “astutely” distinguished between substantial and insubstantial issues.
Legal experts pointed out that the judgement also underscored the importance of evaluating each case individually.
Subramanium said the Supreme Court has called for a “contextual assessment of each situation”.
“As such, it will be difficult to apply this judgment as a straightjacket formula and its application would vary from matter to matter,” said Abhinay Sharma, managing partner at ASL Partners.
Timeline:
1. In 2019, Karikho Kri won the Tezu assembly seat
2. Nunay Tayang, who was defeated, moved the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, seeking Kri’s election be declared as “void”
3. Tayang argued Kri had not declared some of his moveable assets and violated the Representation of the People Act, 1951
4. In 2023, the High Court declared the election of Kri void
5. Kri moved the Supreme Court (SC)
6. SC ruled that defects were “insubstantial” in character
7. SC said it was not necessary that a candidate declare every item of movable property unless it may impact the election result
8. Experts suggest the judgement upholds the voters’ right to know
First Published: Apr 10 2024 | 8:00 PM IST
