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

Holding that candidates contesting elections are not required to disclose each and every moveable property owned by them or their dependents unless they are of substantial value or reflect a luxurious lifestyle, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 09) upheld the 2019 election of the Independent MLA Karikho Kri from the Tezu Assembly constituency in Arunachal Pradesh.

The Bench Comprising Justices Anirudhha Bose and Sanjay Kumar set aside the order of the Gauhati High Court which had declared the election of Karikho Kri as null and void.

In the election petition, it was contended by the respondent/unsuccessful candidate that the Appellant/Karikho Kri exercised undue influence by not disclosing three vehicles owned by Kri's wife and son while filing the nomination for contesting the election. The vehicles were a Kinetic Zing Scooty, a Maruti Omni van and a TVS Motorcycle.

Finding such vehicles to be either gifted or sold before the filing of the nomination by Kri, the Court said that the vehicles could not be considered to be still owned by Kri's wife and son.

“Therefore, the non-disclosure of the three vehicles could not be held against Karikho Kri”, the Court said. The non-disclosure of vehicles cannot be held to be a corrupt practice as per Section 123(2) of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1951.

No absolute right for the voter to know, a candidate is not required to lay his life out threadbare for examination by the electorate.

The Court rejected the respondent's contention that the voters have the right to know is absolute, therefore, Kri must have revealed all particulars.

“We are not inclined to accept the blanket proposition that the 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, the non-disclosure of the each and every asset owned by a candidate would not amount to a defect, much less a defect of a substantial character," Justice Sanjay Kumar read out from the judgment.

The Court opined that the candidate need not disclose each and every movable asset owned by himself or his dependents, however, clarified that such a disclosure may be necessary if it has a substantial impact on his candidature.

"It is not necessary that a candidate declare every item of moveable property that he or his dependent family members owns such as clothing, shoes, crockery, stationery, 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.

Through an example, the Court stated that if a candidate or his family owns several high-priced watches, then they would have to be disclosed as they constitute high-value assets and depict their lavish lifestyle, rather than the ordinary watches owned by them.

The Court clarified that the high-valued assets owned by them need to be disclosed by the candidate to make the voters know about their lifestyle. The Court also clarified that there is no "hard and fast" or "straightjacket" rule regarding this and each case would have to be judged on its own facts.

The Court ultimately set aside the decision of the High Court declaring the result of Karikho Kri as null and void.

Background

Karikho Kri, who was elected in the year 2019 as an independent MLA from the Tezu Assembly constituency in Arunachal Pradesh.

After the election result, an Election Petition was filed by Congress candidate Nuney Tayang, challenging the declaration of the 2019 result in favour of Mr. Kri.

Tayang filed a petition under Section 90(a)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. He sought a declaration to nullify the election victory of Kri from the Tezu seat.

Tayang claimed that Kri provided inaccurate information in his election nomination papers and failed to disclose in Form 26 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, that he occupied a government-allotted MLA cottage in Itanagar. Additionally, Mr. Tayang asserted that Mr. Kri did not furnish "no dues certificates" from relevant departments regarding payments for rent, electricity, water, and telephone charges.

Holding Kri's election as invalid, the High Court held that Kri did not adhere to the requirements outlined in Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act while submitting his nomination paper. Consequently, the nomination paper was susceptible to rejection under Section 36(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act.

Mr Kri was represented by Mr CA Sunderam, Sr. Advocate, Mr Siddharth Dave Sr. Advocate briefed by a team of lawyers from Athena Legal comprising of Mr. Simranjeet Singh (Partner), Mr. Pulkit Gupta, Mr Raushal Kumar, Mr Lovenish Jagdhane, Miss Apurbaa Dutta and Advocate on Record Mr Gautam Talukdar.

Case Title: KARIKHO KRI vs. NUNEY TAYANG, C.A. No. 004615 / 2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 290

Click here to read the judgment