The Supreme Court, in an exclusive statement, clarified that candidates are not obligated to disclose all their properties before elections unless they are of a luxurious or substantial nature. The court emphasized that candidates’ privacy should be respected and that not every detail of their personal life needs to be revealed to the public during election campaigns.
NEW DELHI: Today (9th April): The Supreme Court of India stated “Candidates contesting elections are not obligated to disclose all their movable properties unless they hold substantial value or indicate a luxurious lifestyle“. The court’s decision came during the case of Independent MLA Karikho Kri from Tezu, whose election in the 2019 Arunachal Pradesh Assembly election was upheld by the court.
The bench led by Justices Anirudhha Bose and Sanjay Kumar. The Gauhati High Court order that had previously declared Karikho Kri’s election void was set aside.
The Supreme Court emphasized that voters do not possess an absolute right to know about every asset owned by a candidate. The court acknowledged a candidate’s right to privacy regarding matters that are irrelevant to their candidature. The judgment dismissed the petitioner’s claim that Kri had exercised undue influence by not disclosing three vehicles owned by his wife and son during the nomination process.
READ ALSO: SCAORA Election|| Condemns Secretary Over Baseless Allegation
The court took into consideration that the vehicles in question had either been gifted or sold before Karikho Kri filed his nomination. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that the vehicles could not be considered as still being owned by Kri’s family. The petitioner’s contention that Kri should have revealed all details of his assets based on the voters’ absolute right to know was also rejected by the court.
“We are not inclined to accept the blanket proposition that the candidate is required to lay his life out threadbare for examination by the electorate. His right to privacy would still survive as regards matters which are of no concern to the voter or are irrelevant to his candidature for public office. The non-disclosure of each and every asset owned by a candidate would not amount to a defect,” the Supreme Court as saying.
However, the court said candidates would have to disclose assets if it had a “substantial impact on his candidature”.
“It is not necessary that a candidate declare every item of moveable property such as clothing, shoes, crockery, stationery, furniture unless the same is of such value as to constitute a sizeable asset in itself or reflect upon his candidature in terms of his lifestyle and requires to be disclosed,” the bench further said.
The Supreme Court argued that candidates were not required to divulge each and every asset they possessed, as it would infringe upon their right to privacy. The court stated that a candidate’s privacy should be upheld concerning matters that are of no concern to the voter or are irrelevant to their candidature for public office. The non-disclosure of every asset owned by a candidate was declared not to be a defect.
The court further specified that candidates need not declare every item of movable property, such as clothing, shoes, crockery, stationery, or furniture, unless they hold substantial value or reflect upon the candidate’s lifestyle in a way that necessitates disclosure.
