Candidates have a ‘right to privacy’ from voters, says SC

• The Supreme Court observed that an election candidate is not required to lay his life out threadbare before the electorate in the nomination papers.

• The apex court upheld the election of Independent MLA Karikho Kri from Tezu assembly constituency in Arunachal Pradesh.

• The Supreme Court said the ‘right to privacy’ of a person, contesting an election, would still survive as regards matters which are of no concern to the voter or are irrelevant to his candidature for public office.

What is the case about?

• The case relates to Karikho Kri’s alleged suppression of facts in the poll papers in 2019.

• The election was held on April 11, 2019 and the result was declared on May 27, with Kri being declared the winner as an Independent candidate.

• A plea was filed before the Itanagar bench of the Gauhati High Court seeking a declaration that the election of Karikho Kri was void on the grounds mentioned in Sections 100(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

• A bench of justices set aside the July 17, 2023 judgment of the Itanagar bench of the Gauhati High Court holding the election of Kri from Tezu in Lohit district as null and void.

• It was alleged that Kri made false declarations in his election nomination paper by not disclosing that he was in occupation of a government accommodation, namely MLA Cottage No 1 located in ‘E’ Sector, Itanagar.

• It was also alleged that Kri did not submit ‘No Dues Certificates’ from the concerned department for the rent, electricity charges, water charges and telephone charges of the government accommodation.

• The High Court concluded that sufficient grounds were made out under Section 100(1) of the Act of 1951 to invalidate the election of Karikho Kri and, further, in holding that non-disclosure of the three vehicles, that still remained registered in the names of his wife and son as on the date of filing of his nomination, amounted to a ‘corrupt practice’ under Section 123(2) of the Act of 1951.

Key points of the judgment:

• The SC bench noted that it was strenuously contended that the voter’s “right to know” is absolute and a candidate contesting the election must be forthright about all his particulars.

• In that respect, non-disclosure of each and every asset owned by a candidate will 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 and the likes 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.

Manorama Yearbook app is now available on Google Play Store and iOS App Store