DISCLOSURE OF ASSETS

2. Legal Framework for Candidate Disclosure

• The mandate for candidates to disclose their criminal records, educational qualifications, and financial assets, including those of their spouses and dependents, stems from a pivotal Supreme Court ruling on May 2, 2002. This ruling affirmed that voters' right to information in a democracy is integral to their ability to express their opinions through voting.
• In June 2002, the Election Commission of India (ECI) established rules to implement the court's decision. However, the government at the time sought to limit these disclosures through an ordinance that amended the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in August 2002. This ordinance was later replaced by an Act, which introduced Sections 33A (about the disclosure of pending criminal cases), Section 33B (effectively undermining the ECI's notification by stipulating that only disclosures mandated by the Act were necessary), and Section 125A (penalties for failure to disclose or providing false information).
• The ordinance and subsequent amending Act faced legal challenges. On March 13, 2003, the Supreme Court invalidated Section 33B and reinstated the disclosure requirements for assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications. The ECI then issued revised instructions and disclosure formats by the court's ruling.

3. Consequences of Omission or False Information

According to Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, candidates face potential consequences for failing to disclose necessary information, providing false information, or concealing required details. Such actions can result in a six-month prison sentence, a fine, or both.

Beyond criminal prosecution, any omission or provision of false information can serve as grounds to challenge a candidate's election in the High Court. Relevant legal provisions include:

1. Under Section 100 of the Act, an election may be declared void due to "improper acceptance of any nomination" or "non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act."
2. Unsuccessful candidates have the opportunity to contest the acceptance of the nomination of the eventual winner based on concealment or furnishing of false information. They can also raise concerns regarding potential violations of statutory disclosure requirements.

4. Latest Supreme Court Ruling

• The case revolved around the election of Karikho Kri, an independent candidate who secured a seat in the Arunachal Pradesh Assembly in 2019. His victory was contested by the Congress candidate Nuney Tayang, who alleged that Mr Kri had not disclosed certain movable assets registered under his wife and children's names.
• The Itanagar Bench of the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh upheld the allegations and invalidated Mr Kri's election. The court found that his nomination had been improperly accepted due to his failure to disclose three vehicles (which had been sold years prior but not yet registered under the buyers' names) and his omission of a 'No Dues' certificate for government accommodation he had utilised during a previous term as MLA (2009-14).
• However, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court's judgment. The apex court ruled that the non-disclosure did not constitute a substantial enough omission to warrant the rejection of Mr. Kri's nomination. Moreover, it determined that the omission did not amount to non-compliance with the law, as it did not significantly impact the election's outcome.

5. Key Takeaway from the Verdict

• The Supreme Court emphasised that the voter's right to information about candidates is not absolute. It clarified that candidates are not obligated to reveal every detail of their lives to the electorate. There is no requirement to disclose every movable property unless it holds significant value or reflects upon the candidate's lifestyle, thereby being of interest to voters.
• The court cautioned against a rigid standard, stating that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all rule regarding disclosure. The significance of an omission or its potential impact on the election outcome will vary based on the circumstances of each case.
• This ruling underscores the need for a nuanced approach to candidate disclosure, balancing the voters' right to information with candidates' right to privacy. It acknowledges that while transparency is crucial, not every detail of a candidate's life needs to be laid bare unless it is relevant to the election process.