How did the law on disclosure of assets evolve?

Subject: Polity

Section: Elections

Context:

Two recent events have highlighted issues related to the disclosure requirements for election candidates.
- Firstly, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, a BJP candidate in Thiruvananthapuram, reportedly did not declare all his assets in the required affidavit with his nomination papers.
- Secondly, the Supreme Court has indicated that candidates do not need to disclose every minor detail, acknowledging their right to privacy.
These developments raise questions about balancing transparency and privacy in election laws.

What is the law related to disclosure?

The law related to disclosure for election candidates in India stems from a landmark Supreme Court judgment on May 2, 2002, which established that voters have the right to know about a candidate’s criminal history, educational qualifications, and financial information, including that of their spouses and dependents.
This was based on the principle that the right to information is essential for voters to make informed decisions, thus forming a part of their right to express their opinions through voting.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the Election Commission of India (ECI) issued rules in June 2002 to enforce this judgment.
However, the Central government attempted to limit these disclosure requirements through an ordinance in August 2002 that amended the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
- This ordinance introduced sections that restricted disclosures to only those specified in the Act and set penalties for nondisclosure or false disclosure.
These amendments were challenged in court, and on March 13, 2003, the Supreme Court invalidated Section 33B of the ordinance, thus upholding the original disclosure norms.
Consequently, the ECI reissued revised guidelines and formats for candidates’ disclosures in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

What are the consequences of any omission?

Under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, any candidate who fails to disclose required information, or provides false information, or conceals information, may face up to six months in prison, a fine, or both.
Additionally, such omissions or misinformation can serve as grounds for challenging the validity of a candidate’s election in the High Court.
Specifically, an election can be declared void if there is improper acceptance of a nomination or non-compliance with the legal provisions, rules, or orders under the act.
This allows an unsuccessful candidate to contest the legitimacy of a winning candidate’s nomination based on allegations of concealed or false information, as well as any breaches of mandatory disclosure requirements.

What is the latest court ruling?

The latest court ruling involved the election of Karikho Kri, an independent candidate who won a seat in the Arunachal Pradesh Assembly in 2019. His election was challenged by a Congress candidate on the basis that Kri had failed to disclose certain movable assets and issues related to government accommodation.
The Itanagar Bench of the High Court declared his election void, finding faults in his nomination over non-disclosure of three vehicles and a missing ‘No Dues’ certificate from his previous term as MLA.
However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, ruling that the non-disclosures by Kri were not substantial enough to affect the election outcome.
- It found that the vehicles had been disposed of well before the election, and although the ‘No Dues’ certificate was from 2014, it was still valid as there were no new dues and Kri had not held any government accommodation since.
Thus, the non-compliance did not materially affect the integrity of the electoral process, leading to the reinstatement of Kri’s election.

What is the takeaway from the verdict?

The Supreme Court’s verdict emphasizes that while the voter’s right to know is important, it is not absolute.
Candidates are not required to disclose every detail of their lives or every minor possession.
Disclosure is necessary only for items of significant value or those that could influence a voter’s perception of the candidate’s lifestyle.
However, the court also highlighted that there is no uniform rule for determining the significance of an omission; the impact of each nondisclosure must be assessed based on the specific circumstances of each case.
This implies a need for balance in disclosure requirements, ensuring transparency while respecting a candidate’s privacy.

Source: TH