Supreme Court Observation on Movable Asset Declaration by Election Candidates

Context

Recently, In response to a petition filed by an MLA from Arunachal Pradesh legislative assembly), Supreme court observed that Candidates are not required to disclose every item of moveable assets except “High value” asset, citing a candidate’s Right to privacy.

Candidates Need Not Disclose Every Moveable Property Owned By Them; Voters’ Right To Know Not Absolute: Supreme Court

• Background: A petition was filed by Arunachal Pradesh MLA Karikho Kri challenging the Gauhati High Court’s decision to nullify his election to the 44-Tezu Assembly Constituency. 
• Challenge against HC Ruling: Earlier High Court declared Kri’s victory void based on non-disclosure of vehicles registered as his assets in the affidavit filed under Form No 26 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 as the sufficient to constitute the corrupt practice of ‘undue influence’ under section 123(2) of Representation of People’s Act, 1951.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

Movable and Immovable Assets 

• Movable Assets: Those Assets which can be easily moved from one place to another, for example, cars, jewellery and laptop, also called floating assets.
  • According to Section 2(9) of the Registration Act, 1908, movable properties also include timber, crops and grass, fruits, and fruit juice in trees. 
  • These can be easily divided to anyone. 
• Immovable Assets: The property which cannot be moved from one place to another also called as fixed assets, for example, a house, shop, factory, etc. 
  • According to Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, of 1897, immovable properties include land and other things attached to or permanently rooted in the earth.
  • Plants or trees affixed to the land also come under immovable assets.
  • These cannot be transferred to anyone without making a will or without gifting or partitioning.

Movable Asset Declaration by Election Candidates (Representation of People’s Act, 1951)

• Affidavit Filing Requirements: Individuals running for elections are obligated to submit an affidavit disclosing their criminal records, assets and liabilities, and educational qualifications.
• Post-Election Declarations: Upon being elected, Members of Parliament (MPs) must submit a declaration of their assets and liabilities to the Speaker of Lok Sabha and the Chairman of Rajya Sabha. & same in case of MLAs in states. 

Supreme Court Ruling

• Candidate’s Obligation on Disclosure of Moveable Asset: The Supreme Court ruled that a candidate’s decision to maintain privacy regarding irrelevant personal matters does not constitute a ‘corrupt practice’ under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. 

• • SC clarified that such non-disclosure does not amount to a “defect of a substantial nature” under Section 36(4) of the RPA 1951. 
• Criteria for Assets Disclosure: The Court clarified that candidates aren’t required to declare every movable property unless it significantly impacts their asset value or reflects their lifestyle. 
  • For Example: Concealing the information about an expensive watch collection could be deemed a substantial defect, suppressing the value of simple, inexpensive watches may not amount to a defect at all. 
• Asset Declaration to Enhance Voter’s Participation : It emphasized that asset declaration serves to enhance democratic participation and the voters’ right to information, aiding them in making informed voting decisions. 
• Balanced Approach: The Court aimed to strike a balance between voters’ right to access relevant asset information and the candidate’s right to privacy, acknowledging that not every minor detail requires exposure to public scrutiny. 
  • Ultimately, each case must be evaluated based on its specific facts to determine the substantiality of asset non-disclosure.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Classes

Implication of Supreme Court Ruling

• Clarity on Disclosure Obligations: The Supreme Court’s decision offers clarity regarding the disclosure requirements for movable assets by election candidates. It elucidates the need for transparency while avoiding unnecessary burdens on candidates. 
• Balancing Transparency and Privacy: The ruling aims to strike a balance between the voters’ right to information and the candidates’ right to privacy. It ensures fair and well-informed electoral processes. 
• Reaffirming Electoral Principles: By overturning the High Court’s decision and validating Kri’s election win, the Supreme Court reaffirms that election challenges must be grounded in substantive issues related to the candidate’s eligibility and adherence to electoral laws.

DOWNLOAD PDF