Voters have no absolute right to know every moveable property owned by the candidates contesting elections: Supreme Court

Today, the Supreme Court (SC) of India in the Karikho Kri vs. Nuney Tayang and another case upheld the 2019 election of MLA Karikho Kri from the Tezu Assembly constituency in Arunachal Pradesh stating that the voters have no absolute right to know every moveable property owned by the candidates contesting elections. The bench illustrated that “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.” It added, “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.” The matter was heard by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar. The bench set aside the Gauhati High Court’s order declaring the election of Karikho Kri as null and void. 

In the petition, the unsuccessful candidate/respondent contended that three vehicles, the Kinetic Zing Scooty, the Maruti Omni Van, and the TVS Star City Motorcycle, were owned by the wife and son of Karikho Kri but they were not disclosed in the Affidavit filed by him. It added that Karikho Kri exercised undue influence by not disclosing those three vehicles. The SC bench noted, “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.” Further, the top court observed that the HC itself concluded that the three vehicles in question were transferred, be it by way of sale or gift. Therefore, “non-disclosure of the three vehicles in question could not be held against Karikho Kri,” said the SC. 

Following this, the top Court said that the non-disclosure of vehicles cannot be considered a corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1951. Moreover, the bench also rejected the contention of the respondent that the voters have the right to know is absolute and said that “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.” At last, the SC set aside the judgment of the Assam High Court and upheld the 2019 election of MLA Karikho Kri from the Tezu Assembly constituency in Arunachal Pradesh.