Supreme Court of India dismissed contempt plea over asset disclosure directions in Lok Prahari v. Union of India. Bench led by JB Pardiwala found no wilful disobedience, accepting Centre’s response.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court rejected a contempt petition alleging that the directions issued by it in 2018 were not being implemented properly to ensure asset disclosures by individuals who contest elections.
A Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan reviewed the reply submitted by the Central Government. After considering it, the Bench concluded that there was no deliberate or wilful violation of the Court’s 2018 judgment in Lok Prahari v. Union of India.
Justice Pardiwala observed,
“We don’t think there is any contempt. It depends on nature of directions and how to implement those directions. There is no wilful disobedience,”
In its 2018 Lok Prahari ruling, the Supreme Court held that failure to disclose assets and sources of income of election candidates and also of their associates would amount to a corrupt practice, with potential consequences including disqualification.
The Court’s directions, in substance, required disclosure not only by electoral candidates but also by their spouses and dependents.
In 2024, a contempt petition was filed, alleging that the 2018 judgment was not being enforced in the manner required.
At the hearing on Thursday, Lokpal’s General Secretary highlighted that an amended prayer sought the creation of a permanent mechanism to track legislators whose assets increase by 100% between elections. He also suggested that such matters could be referred to the Lokpal.
However, the Court declined to issue any additional directions, observing that there was no wilful disobedience of the 2018 asset-disclosure directions by electoral candidates. The contempt petition was therefore dismissed.
The Court’s order said,
“Mr. SN Shukla, General Secretary of the Lokpal, submitted that the Union is in contempt. Mr. Nataraj, learned ASG, submitted that there is no contempt and that an appropriate reply has been filed and placed on record. He took us through the relevant contents of the reply, particularly the portions explaining the developments that have taken place. In view of the above, we are of the view that no case of contempt is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed,”
Case Title: Lok Prahari vs Dr Rajiv Mani.
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE