SC: Candidates don’t need to declare every movable asset

THE VOTER’S right to know about candidates cannot be stretched so far as to require the latter to lay their life out threadbare for examination as they too are entitled to privacy, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday. The court said such non-disclosure of each and every asset owned by poll condidates would not amount to a defect of a substantial character so as to invalidate their election.

A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar reversed the July 7, 2023 decision of the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh invalidating the April 2019 poll victory of independent candidate Karikho Kri from the 44 Tezu (ST) Assembly constituency in Arunachal Pradesh.

“Though it has been strenuously contended before us that the voter’s ‘right to know’ is absolute and a candidate contesting the election must be forthright about all his particulars, we are not inclined to accept the blanket proposition that a 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,” Justice Sanjay Kumar said writing for the bench.

The court said “in that respect, non-disclosure of each and every asset owned by a candidate would not amount to a defect, much less, a defect of a substantial character. It is not necessary that a candidate declare every item of movable property that he or his dependent family members owns, such as, clothing, shoes, crockery, stationery and furniture, etc, 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 require to be disclosed.”

The bench added that “every case would have to turn on its own peculiarities and there can be no hard and fast or straitjacketed rule as to when the non-disclosure of a particular movable asset by a candidate would amount to a defect of a substantial character”.

By way of illustration, it said, “For example, a candidate and his family who own several high-priced watches, which would aggregate to a huge figure in terms of monetary value, would obviously have to disclose the same as they constitute an asset of high value and also reflect upon his lavish lifestyle. Suppression of the same would constitute ‘undue influence’ upon the voter as that relevant information about the candidate is being kept away from the voter. However, if a candidate and his family members each own a simple watch, which is not highly priced, suppression of the value of such watches may not amount to a defect at all. Each case would, therefore, have to be judged on its own facts.”

The SC said there is a need to distinguish between substantial and insubstantial issues while considering the validity of a nomination.

“Every defect in the nomination cannot straightaway be termed to be of such character as to render its acceptance improper and each case would have to turn on its own individual facts, insofar as that aspect is concerned. The case law on the subject also manifests that this court has always drawn a distinction between non-disclosure of substantial issues as opposed to insubstantial issues, which may not impact one’s candidature or the result of an election. The very fact that Section 36(4) of the Act of 1951 speaks of the Returning Officer not rejecting a nomination unless he is of the opinion that the defect is of a substantial nature demonstrates that this distinction must always be kept in mind and there is no absolute mandate that every non-disclosure, irrespective of its gravity and impact, would automatically amount to a defect of substantial nature, thereby materially affecting the result of the election or amounting to ‘undue influence’ so as to qualify as a corrupt practice.”

Kri was accused by rival congress candidate Nuney Tayang of suppressing material particulars in his election affidavit filed in form no.26 appended to the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961.

He was accused of not disclosing the ownership of certain vehicles, not submitting a ‘no dues certificate’ in the context of electricity and water charges of his government accomodation, and not disclosing dues of municipal and property taxes.