It set aside Gauhati high court’s order invalidating the election of an independent candidate, Karikho Kri, to Arunachal Pradesh‘s assembly for not declaring three vehicles registered in the names of his wife and son.
Non-disclosure of every asset won’t amount to a defect: SC
It said the MLA had declared assets of Rs 8.4 crore and value of the vehicles was minuscule compared to his assets and “non-disclosure cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as an attempt on his part to unduly influence voters”. It also noted that the vehicles were already gifted or sold by him at the time of filing nomination and only transfer of ownership remained to be done.
A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar said there was no absolute mandate that every non-disclosure, irrespective of its gravity and impact, will automatically amount to a substantial defect, materially affecting the result of elections or amounting to “undue influence” so as to qualify as a corrupt practice.
Balancing right of voters to know with right to privacy of a candidate, the bench said, “Though it has been strenuously contended before us that the voters’ right to know is absolute and a candidate contesting the election must be forthright about all his particulars, 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 will still survive as regards matters that are of no concern to voters or are irrelevant to his candidature for public office.”
Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Kumar said, “In that respect, non-disclosure of each and every asset owned by a candidate will not amount to a defect, much less, a defect of a substantial character. It is not necessary that a candidate declare every item of movable property that he or his dependent family mem-bers own, such as clothing, shoes, crockery, stationery and furniture, etc, 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 require to be disclosed.”
The bench said there could be no hard and fast or straitjacketed rule as to when non-disclosure of a particular movable asset by a candidate will amount to a defect of a substantial character. Elucidating it with an example, court said if a candidate and his family own several high-priced watches, then they have to be disclosed as they constitute an asset of high value and also reflect upon his lavish lifestyle.
“Suppression of the same will constitute undue influence upon voters as that relevant information about the candidate is being kept away from them. However, if a candidate and his family members each own a simple watch, which is not highly priced, suppression of the value of such watches may not amount to a defect at all,” it said.
Court said mere non-compliance or breach of the Constitution or statutory provisions will not result in invalidating elections and permission to quash poll results can be given only if such breach or non- observance was determined to have materially affected the result.