Candidates Need Not Disclose Every Moveable Property, Voters' Right To Know Not Absolute: SC
The Supreme Court has held that the voter's right to know is not absolute and a candidate need not disclose each and every movable asset owned by him or his dependents.
The SC observations came in a plea filed by Independent MLA Karikho Kri from the Tezu Assembly constituency in Arunachal Pradesh against the Gauhati High Court order declaring his election as null and void.
Why his election was nullified
His election victory was challenged by Congress candidate Nuney Tayang who claimed that Kri "exercised undue influence by not disclosing three vehicles owned by his wife and son while filing the nomination for contesting the election."
The vehicles were a Kinetic Zing Scooty, a Maruti Omni van and a TVS Motorcycle.
The petition filed under Section 90(a)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 also claimed that Kri provided inaccurate information in his election nomination papers and failed to disclose in Form 26 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, that he occupied a government-allotted MLA cottage in Itanagar.
Further, it claimed that Kri did not furnish "no dues certificates" from relevant departments regarding payments for rent, electricity, water, and telephone charges.
What Gauhati HC said?
The Gauhati HC held that Kri did not adhere to the requirements outlined in Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act while submitting his nomination paper and declared his election as null and void.
Not required to disclose every moveable property
However, while hearing this appeal, the SC noted that candidates contesting elections are not required to disclose each and every moveable property owned by them or their dependents unless they are of substantial value or reflect a luxurious lifestyle.
"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," the bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar said while setting aside the HC order.
For more news and current affairs from around the world, please visit?Indiatimes News.
