 |
| Supreme Court Upholds Candidate's Right to Privacy in Electoral Affidavits |
On April 9, 2024, a landmark ruling was delivered by the Supreme Court of India, addressing the delicate balance between a candidate's right to privacy and the electorate's need for transparency in electoral processes. This judgment stemmed from a petition filed by Karikho Kri, an MLA from Arunachal Pradesh, challenging the Gauhati High Court's decision to void his election due to alleged non-disclosure of assets in his electoral affidavit.
Supreme Court Bench:
The case was heard by a bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar. Justice Kumar authored the judgment, clarifying that a candidate's decision to maintain privacy regarding non-substantial or irrelevant aspects of their personal life does not constitute a 'corrupt practice' under the Representation of People Act, 1951.
Representation of People Act, 1951:
The Representation of People Act, 1951, a pivotal legislation governing electoral conduct, defines 'corrupt practices' in Section 123, while Section 36(4) deals with the rejection of nomination papers due to substantial defects.
Candidate’s Right to Privacy:
Emphasizing the candidate's right to privacy, the Supreme Court underscored that candidates are not obligated to disclose every facet of their personal life and possessions. The judgment elucidated that the non-disclosure of assets lacking substantial value or relevance to the candidate's candidacy would not amount to a substantial defect.
Context of the Petition:
Karikho Kri, an Independent candidate, faced the annulment of his election victory in the 44-Tezu Assembly Constituency of Arunachal Pradesh by the Gauhati High Court in July 2023. This was due to the alleged omission of three vehicles—a Kinetic Zing Scooty, a Maruti Omni van utilized as an ambulance, and a TVS Star City motorcycle—from his affidavit filed in accordance with Form No 26 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961.
Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961:
The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, governs election conduct in India. Form No 26, appended to these rules, mandates candidates to disclose their assets and liabilities.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
In a pivotal ruling, the Supreme Court sided with Karikho Kri, concurring with his legal counsel's argument that sold vehicles cannot be deemed as assets of the candidate. It stressed that voters possess the right to essential information necessary for informed decision-making. The judgment establishes a nuanced equilibrium between a candidate's right to privacy and the electorate's right to pertinent information, asserting that the non-disclosure of inconsequential assets does not constitute a corrupt practice or a substantial defect in the nomination process.