The Supreme Court
on Tuesday said that electoral candidates do not have to disclose in their
nomination papers every piece of movable property owned by them or their family
members, unless the assets are of significant value or reflect a luxurious
lifestyle, reported Live Law.
A division bench
comprising justices Anirudhha Bose and Sanjay Kumar said this while upholding
the 2019 election of ) Karikho Kri, an Independent legislator representing the
Tezu Assembly constituency in Arunachal Pradesh.
The apex court overturned a ruling of the Gauhati
High Court (HC), which had declared Kri's election null and void for failing to
disclose the complete list of assets belonging to his wife and son when filing
his nomination.
The High Court's
decision was in response to a petition filed by Congress candidate Nuney
Tayang, who alleged that Kri had failed to disclose three vehicles owned by his
wife and son.
However, the
Supreme Court said on Tuesday that the failure to disclose these assets cannot
be considered a corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951. This section addresses corrupt practices such as bribery,
undue influence, and the provision of false information.
The bench also
noted that voters do not have an absolute right to such information and that
candidates are not obligated to expose every detail of their lives to public
scrutiny.
“A candidate’s
right to privacy would still survive regarding matters which are of no concern
to the voter or are irrelevant to his or her candidature for public office,”
the court said.
“In that respect,
the 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
added.
The Supreme Court
clarified that candidates must disclose their “highly valued assets” to inform
voters about their lifestyles. It also noted that there is no blanket rule
regarding the disclosure of a candidate’s assets and that each case would have
to be judged on its merits.