Voter's 'Right To Know' Not Absolute; Candidate Has 'Right To Privacy’ In Matters Irrelevant To His Candidature For Public Office: SC
|The Supreme Court observed that is not necessary that a candidate declare every item of movable property that he or his dependent family members owns, 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, in an appeal filed by Karikho Kri an election candidate from the State of Arunachal Pradesh, observed that non-disclosure of every asset owned by a candidate would not amount to a defect of a substantial character.
The Court also held that his ‘Right to Privacy’ would still survive in matters which are of no concern to the voter or are irrelevant to his candidature for public office.
The Bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed, “Though it has been strenuously contended before us that the voter’s ‘right to know’ is absolute and a candidate contesting the election must be forthright about all his particulars, we are not inclined to accept the blanket proposition that a 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, non-disclosure of each and every asset owned by a candidate would not amount to a defect, much less, a defect of a substantial character. It is not necessary that a candidate declare every item of movable property that he or his dependent family members owns, such as, clothing, shoes, crockery, stationery and 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.”
Senior Advocates C.A. Sundaram and Arunabh Chowdhury appeared for the Appellant while Advocate Dr. Sushil Balwada appeared for the Respondents.
In the year 2019, Karikho Kri an independent candidate emerged victorious with 7538 votes, while Dr. Mohesh Chai of Bhartiya Janta party secured 7383 votes and Nuney Tayang from Indian National Congress secured 1088 votes. Tayang had filed an election petition before the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh seeking a declaration that the election of Karikho Kri was void on the grounds mentioned in Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i) and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951(ROPA). The High Court allowed the election petition in part declaring the election of Kri void.
The Court, on the ground of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the ROPA, said, “Significantly, the High Court linked all the non-disclosures attributed to Karikho Kri to Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act of 1951 but ultimately concluded that his election stood invalidated under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) thereof. Surprisingly, there is no discussion whatsoever on what were the violations which qualified as non-compliance with the provisions of either the Constitution or the Act of 1951 or the rules and orders framed thereunder, for the purposes of Section 100(1)(d)(iv), and as to how the same materially affected the result of the election.”
While placing its reliance on the precedent of its own in Mangani Lal Mandal vs. Bishnu Deo Bhandari (2012), the Court observed that for the election petitioner to succeed on the ground of non-compliance, he shall not only plead and prove such breach but must also show the material effect on the result of the election.
On the issue of registration of vehicles in the name of his wife and his son, the Court observed, “Mere failure to get registered the name of the new owner of an already registered vehicle does not mean that the sale/gift transaction would stand invalidated and such a vehicle, despite being physically handed over to the new owner, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as still being in the possession and control of the former owner. Once it is accepted that the three vehicles in question were either gifted or sold before the filing of the nomination by Karikho Kri, the said vehicles cannot be considered to be still owned by Karikho Kri’s wife and son for purposes other than those covered by the Act of 1988.”
“Such non-disclosure cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as an attempt on his part to unduly influence the voters, thereby inviting the wrath of Section 123(2) of the Act of 1951.”, the Court further said.
Analyzing the facts and circumstances, the Bench observed that the High Court was in error in error in concluding that sufficient grounds were made out under ROPA to invalidate the election of Karikho Kri and that the non-disclosure of three vehicles, that were registered in the name of his wife and son, amounted to ‘corrupt practice’.
Consequently, the Court set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and the election of Karikho Kri from 44 Tezu Assembly Constituency of the State of Arunachal Pradesh was upheld.
Cause Title: Karikho Kri v. Nuney Tayang and Anr (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 289)
Appearances:
Appellant: Senior Advocates C.A. Sundaram, Arunabh Chowdhury, Advocates Simranjeet Singh, Pulkit Gupta, Gautam Talukdar, Raushal Kumar, Apurbaa Dutta, Lovenish Jagdhane, Zafar Inayat, Amol Chitale, Pragya Baghel, Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Vishal Banshal, Karma Dorjee, Abhishek Roy, Dechen W Lachungpa.
Respondents: Advocates Dr. Sushil Balwada, Pragya Baghel, Tatini Basu, Boboy Potsangbam, Gamso Billai, Kumar Shashank, Byrapaneni Suyodhan.