The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, stated that candidates contesting elections are not required to disclose every movable property they or their dependents own unless those assets are of substantial value or indicate a luxurious lifestyle. This direction came as the Supreme Court upheld the election of Independent MLA Karikho Kri from Tezu in the 2019 Arunachal Pradesh Assembly election.
The apex court emphasized that voters do not have an absolute right to know about every asset of a candidate, and candidates have a right to privacy regarding matters irrelevant to their candidature.
A division bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Anirudhha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, overturned the Gauhati High Court's decision that had declared Karikho Kri's election void.
The petition against Karikho Kri alleged that he had exerted undue influence by failing to disclose three vehicles owned by his wife and son while filing his nomination. However, the Supreme Court noted that these vehicles had either been gifted or sold before Kri filed his nomination, so they could not be considered as owned by his family at the time of nomination.
The court rejected the argument that candidates must disclose all details of their assets, stating that a candidate's right to privacy persists regarding matters irrelevant to their candidacy. It clarified that non-disclosure of every asset by a candidate does not constitute a defect unless the asset has a substantial impact on their candidature.
The Supreme Court specified that candidates are only required to disclose assets that significantly impact their candidature, rather than every item of movable property. Only assets of substantial value or those reflecting the candidate's lifestyle need to be disclosed. Items like clothing, shoes, crockery, stationery, and furniture need not be disclosed unless they are of significant value or relevant to the candidate's lifestyle.
