Supreme Court’s Decision: Disclosure of assets and sources of income during poll

The Honorable Supreme Court gave historical judgment on Friday in the direction of electoral reforms. It ruled that all candidates contesting elections have to declare their sources of income and assets along with assets and sources of income of their spouses and dependants while filing nomination. They also have to declare to Election Commission that whether they or their family members have received any government tender or not?

Prior to this judgment of Apex Court, candidates have to declare only assets (movable and immovable property) of themselves, their spouse and three dependants/associates but not the source of income.

The Court directed the Central government to set up a mechanism which could monitor the assets of elected candidates, their spouses and their dependents. If there is the disproportionate increase in their property between two successive elections then proper action would be taken against them.

The figures collected should be kept in public domain. If any candidate does not disclose assets and source of income then it would be a violation of Representation of People’s Act, 1951 considering as ‘corrupt behavior’.

The PIL petition was filed by NGO Lok Prahari alleging that there is exponential increase in assets of 26 Lok Sabha members, 11 Rajya Sabha members and 257 MLAs.

The bench of Justice Chelameshwar and Justice S. Abdul Nazir directed the central government in its judgment that ‘their assets and sources of income are required to be continuously monitored to maintain the purity of the electoral process and integrity of the democratic structure of this country’.

It is a fundamental right of the citizen to know under Article 19(1) (a) and obligation on a candidate to disclose his assets and the source of income.

The Court said that India is a Socialist country i.e. there should be a distribution of resources but not the concentration of wealth. The similar directive has been provided under Article 39(b) and 39(c).

The bench also suggested for the establishment of special fast-track criminal courts to try MPs and MLAs in corruption cases.

The judgment strengthened the foundations of democracy maintaining its dignity, purity, and accountability. It will necessarily present a clear image of nominated candidates in public domain. If there is any undue increase in assets of politicians then he would not be able to contest an election in next term. The elections are held to redress the grievances of people through their representatives in Legislature but if they do not come with clean hands then it is undesirable to expect good of the people by them.

By- Manas Bulchandani, Indian National Bar Association, Student Reporter