The Supreme Court has said voters do not have an absolute right to know all details of a candidate’s private life, and candidates are not required to disclose every item of moveable property they own, unless its value amounts to a “sizable asset”.
Key points
- The court upheld the candidate’s right to privacy in matters that are irrelevant to his candidature for public office or are of no concern to voters.
- The court allowed an appeal by Karikho Kri, whose election to the Arunachal Pradesh Assembly in 2019 was challenged on the ground that he had failed to disclose full information in his nomination papers.
- Section 100(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 enumerates the grounds on which a candidate’s election can be invalidated.
- Under Section 100(1)(b), an election can be declared void if “any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent”.
- Under Sections 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv), a High Court can rule that election results have been “materially affected” if there is “improper acceptance” of a nomination or non-compliance of the provisions of the Constitution, the 1951 Act, or any Rules or orders made under the Act.
- Under Section 123, “corrupt practices” include bribery, undue influence, false information, and promotion or attempted promotion of “feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language” by a candidate for the furtherance of his prospects in the election.
- Section 123(2) deals with “undue influence”: “any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate or his agent, or of any other person, with the consent of the candidate or his election agent, with the free exercise of any electoral right.” This could include threats of injury, social ostracism, and expulsion from any caste or community.
