Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Direct People's Representatives To Declare Assets After Term As Well

Appearing before a Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, the Counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of filing the nomination, politicians/candidates are required to disclose assets in Form 26 in terms of Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. He argued that the said information cannot be considered to be complete until the declaration of assets are made at the end of their terms as well, so that by looking at the assets before and after the term, the voters can gauge if they have been defrauded in any manner.

"Politicians are to declare assets in Form 26 at the time of nomination. According to me it is incomplete information until they give the details at the end of the term."

Justice Kaul was of the opinion that something that is in the domain of the legislature needs to be worked out by it and the Court should not be dragged in, on all occasions.

"Sometimes let the legislature also do something. You want the court to do everything."

The Counsel retorted - "Milords, Democracy is in a bad shape."

Justice Kaul was disappointed that the judicial forum has now become a place to settle political scores. Refusing to admit the petition he stated that certain measures have been taken by the Election Commission.

"You are making judicial forums a place for settlement of political issues. The Election Commission has done certain things."

The petition had alleged that a large number of politicians are plundering national wealth with impunity, in the absence of any checks and balances. It submitted that controlling the assets of politicians is the only way to curb corruption. Noting that the income of politicians is 100 times that of the people of the country, it argued that India is failing the 'acid test of democracy'. It further indicated that the average assets of MPs of Lok Sabha during the term 2014-2019 stood at Rs. 16 crore, as per declarations made, which is 1600 times the average income of the citizens. Considering this disparity, the petition had also sought direction to frame Rules/ Guidelines that the assets of the people's representative must have some synchronization and coherence with the average assets of the citizens.

[Case Title: Prabhakar Deshpande v. Union of India And Anr.]