Supreme Court Rules on Candidate’s Right to Privacy Regarding Asset Disclosures

The recent ruling by the Supreme Court of India has shed light on the balance between a candidate’s right to privacy and the disclosure of assets when contesting in elections. The bench led by Justice Anniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar addressed the case of Karikho Kri v Nuney Tyang, emphasizing the importance of disclosing only assets that could impact the public image of the candidate.

Three candidates vied for the Tezu 44 constituency seat in Arunachal Pradesh, with Karikho Kri emerging victorious. However, a civil petition was filed by Nuney Tyang citing non-disclosure of certain assets by Karikho. The High Court declared Karikho’s election null and void on the grounds of non-disclosure, invoking provisions of the Representation of People’s Act 1951.

In the appeal to the Supreme Court, the bench noted that non-disclosure of insignificant or transferred assets does not automatically disqualify a candidate unless the undisclosed assets are deemed significant to influence voters’ choices. The court cited various past judgments to support its stance on asset disclosure by candidates.

While upholding the seriousness of free and fair elections and the need for transparent disclosures under the law, the Supreme Court also acknowledged the privacy rights of candidates. The ruling emphasized the importance of following the prescribed Form No. 26 for election disclosures without withholding material information.

Drawing on earlier precedents and legal provisions, the court delved into the essence of corrupt practices and the impact of asset disclosure on electoral integrity. The judgment attempted to maintain a delicate balance between electoral transparency and individual privacy rights.