Candidates need not disclose details of every moveable property unless it impacts voting: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that a voter does not have an absolute right to delve deeply into a candidate's private life and know every minute information unless such information would have an impact on his voting decision [Karikho Kri vs Nuney Tayang and anr]..The bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and PV Sanjay Kumar said that a candidate need not disclose each and every detail of moveable property owned by him or his family unless the same is of substantial value which could impact the choice of voters."It is not necessary that a candidate declare every item of movable property that he or his dependent family members owns, 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 Court observed.Specifically on the right to privacy of the candidate, the Court said, "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’ would still survive as regards matters which are of no concern to the voter or are irrelevant to his candidature for public office. In that respect, non-disclosure of each and every asset owned by a candidate would not amount to a defect, much less, a defect of a substantial character."However, the Court clarified that the finding was based only on the facts and circumstances of the particular case before it it and there can be no hard and fast rule as to when the non-disclosure of a movable asset by a candidate would amount to a defect of a substantial character."Every case would have to turn on its own peculiarities and there can be no hard and fast or straitjacketed rule as to when the non-disclosure of a particular movable asset by a candidate would amount to a defect of a substantial character ... Each case would, therefore, have to be judged on its own facts," the Court stated. The Court made the observations while affirming the validity of the 2019 election of independent Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Karikho Kri from the Tezu Assembly constituency in Arunachal Pradesh.The top court thereby, quashed the Gauhati High Court verdict which had declared Kri's election as null and void..In 2019, Karikho Kri was elected as an independent MLA from the Tezu Assembly constituency. However, his election was challenged by Congress candidate Nuney Tayang before Gauhati High Court alleging that Kri had made false declarations in his election nomination paper and failed to disclose information about his assets. .The Itanagar Bench of the High Court last year found that Kri had not not made disclosure regarding the ownership of a Scooty and a Maruti Omni Van Ambulance owned by his wife and a motorcycle owned by his son. It thus said that Kri’s nomination paper ought to have been rejected by the Returning Officer.“Non-disclosure of the assets of the candidates, their associates, his or her spouse or dependents, have been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court … to constitute a corrupt practice falling under the Heading “undue influence” as defined under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, irrespective of the impact of such a false declaration on the election of a candidate,” the High Court had said..Kri then moved the Supreme Court and argued that since the vehicles were not owned by him, he was unaware of them. He had further submitted that the total disclosure amounted to more than ₹7 crores and asked whether details regarding things as minor as a tie and pen should also be disclosed."There is no absolute mandate that every non-disclosure, irrespective of its gravity and impact, would automatically amount to a defect of substantial nature, thereby materially affecting the result of the election or amounting to ‘undue influence’ so as to qualify as a corrupt practice," the top court stressed while allowing the appeal..Senior Counsel Arunabh Chowdhury with advocates Amol Chitale, Pragya Baghel, Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Vishal Banshal, Karma Dorjee, Abhishek Roy, and Dechen W Lachungpa appeared for Tayang.Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi and C Aryama Sundaram with advocates Simranjeet Singh, Pulkit Gupta, Lovenish Jagdhane, Gautam Talukdar, Raushal Kumar, Apurbaa Dutta, and Zafar Inayat appeared for Kri..[Read Judgment]