New Delhi: The Supreme Court clarified on Tuesday that candidates are not obligated to disclose each and every movable asset owned by themselves or their dependents unless such assets constitute high-value holdings with a substantial impact on their candidature.
The clarification came as the apex court upheld the 2019 election of Independent MLA Karikho Kri from the Tezu Assembly constituency in Arunachal Pradesh. The decision overturns the earlier verdict of the Gauhati High Court, which had declared Kri’s election null and void based on an election petition filed by Congress candidate Nuney Tayang.
Tayang’s petition alleged that Kri had made false declarations in his election nomination paper by omitting details of vehicles owned by himself and his family, as well as a plot of land owned by his mother. Additionally, Tayang claimed that Kri failed to disclose his occupation of a government accommodation and did not submit various certificates pertaining to rent, electricity charges, water charges, and telephone charges.
However, the bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, while delivering the judgment, emphasized that candidates are not required to disclose all movable assets unless they are high-value assets significantly affecting the candidature. The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the importance of ensuring transparency in the electoral process while also providing clarity on the extent of asset disclosure obligations for candidates.
The Gauhati High Court’s earlier decision to nullify Kri’s election was aimed at upholding the integrity of the electoral process and preventing individuals from securing election through flagrant breaches of the law. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling overturns this decision, underscoring the need to strike a balance between ensuring compliance with legal requirements and safeguarding the electoral process from unnecessary disruption.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the conduct of fresh elections to the Tezu Assembly constituency, which had been stayed by an interim direction, is expected to proceed. However, the appellant, Karikho Kri, will be entitled to all privileges as a Member of the House, with the exception of casting votes on the floor of the House and in any committees where he participates as a Member of the Legislative Assembly.