The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that candidates contesting elections need not disclose each and every moveable property owned by them or their dependents unless they were of substantial value or reflect a luxurious lifestyle. The Supreme Court direction came as it upheld the election of Independent MLA Karikho Kri from Tezu in the 2019 Arunachal Pradesh Assembly election, a report in Live Law said.
The top court said a voter had no absolute right to know about each and every asset of a candidate. It further said that a poll candidate had the right to privacy regarding matters irrelevant to his/her candidature.
The Supreme Court division bench, comprising Justices Anirudhha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, set aside the Gauhati High Court order that had declared the election of Karikho Kri as void.
In the petition, Karikho Kri's opponent had claimed that the MLA "exercised undue influence" by not disclosing three vehicles owned by his wife and son while filing his nomination.
The court noted that the vehicles were either gifted or sold before the filing of the nomination by Karikho Kri. Thus, the top court said the vehicles could not be considered to be still owned by Kri's family.
The Supreme Court also rejected the petitioner's contention that Kri should have revealed all details of his assets as the voters' right to know was absolute.
"We are not inclined to accept the blanket proposition that the 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 non-disclosure of each and every asset owned by a candidate would not amount to a defect," Live Law quoted the Supreme Court as saying.
However, the court said candidates would have to disclose assets if it had a "substantial impact on his candidature".
"It is not necessary that a candidate declare every item of moveable property such as clothing, shoes, crockery, stationery, furniture 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 requires to be disclosed," the bench further said.
