Non-disclosure of assets by candidates violates voters' right to know: HC

Congress leader’s plea challenging 2014 LS election of BJP’s Gopal Shetty, dismissed

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court held if citizens are not informed of the criminal antecedents of a candidate and details of their assets then it would violate their right to know, under the fundamental right to speech and expression.

The ruling was delivered while dismissing the petition filed by city Congress chief Sanjay Nirupam against the election of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) Gopal Shetty in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections.

A single-judge bench of Justice Mridula Bhatkar said, “The right to vote is an electoral right, though not a fundamental right but it always walks hand-in-hand with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. A citizen enjoys freedom of expression if he is informed fully. Then, he should be informed fully about details of the electoral process.”

“Thus, it also includes the right to vote, which includes the right to know, a kangaroo baby right under the right to freedom of expression. Thus, true, genuine and effective enforcement of right to vote means the right to information and the right of choice are also to be respected and are to be facilitated,” Justice Bhatkar held.

The court’s observation means, unless the voter is fully informed about the true and detailed disclosures of the criminal antecedents, so also the assets and details of the property owned by a candidate and his family members, they cannot be said to be well-informed and thus, their right to know is scuttled.

The significant ruling was made while dismissing Nirupam’s petition. In his plea, Nirupam, who lost to Shetty in 2014, claimed the latter did not disclose correct information regarding the assets owned by him and his wife. He claimed, this act of Shetty amounts to a malpractice under the Representation of People Act, 1950. According to Nirupam, Shetty did not disclose details of a property owned by him in Borivli, which was allegedly developed by the firm owned by Shetty's wife later. He also alleged, Shetty did not disclose details of his wife's construction firm in his nomination papers. Countering the arguments, Shetty claimed, the alleged land at Borivli was developed into an SRA building and a proper housing society has been formed on the same. He further claimed his wife’s firm had zero value in 2014, when he filled in the nomination form. Accepting the arguments, Justice Bhatkar said, “Considering the facts and nature of the property, non-mentioning the said property in the nomination form and in the affidavit as an asset is not a substantive defect. Thus, the petition is dismissed.”