‘Voters' right to know not absolute’: Supreme Court upholds Arunachal Pradesh MLA’s election

Tribune News Service

Satya Prakash

New Delhi, April 9

Holding that voters' right to know was not absolute and candidates needn’t disclose every moveable property owned by them, the Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the election of Independent MLA in Arunachal Pradesh.

“We are not inclined to accept the blanket proposition that the candidate is required to lay his life out for a threadbare 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,” a Bench of Justice Anirudhha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar said.

“In that respect, the 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," Justice Kumar said.

"It is not necessary that a candidate declares every item of moveable 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 top court clarified.

Setting aside the July 17, 2023, judgment of the Itanagar Bench of the Gauhati High Court, the top court upheld the election of Independent MLA Karikho Kri from Tezu Assembly constituency in April 2019.

The high court had declared Kri’s election as “null and void” after defeated Congress candidate Nuney Tayang who alleged that Kri made false declarations in his election nomination papers by not disclosing that he was in occupation of a government accommodation, namely MLA Cottage No 1 located in 'E' Sector, Itanagar. It was 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.

Tayang had accused Kri of exercising undue influence by not disclosing three vehicles owned by his wife and son in his nomination papers.

However, noting that the vehicles were either gifted or sold before the filing of the nomination papers by Kri, the top court said the vehicles could not be considered to be still owned by his wife and son.

“Therefore, the non-disclosure of the three vehicles could not be held against Karikho Kri”, the top court said, adding the non-disclosure of vehicles can’t be held to be a “corrupt practice” within the meaning of Section 123(2) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.

#Arunachal Pradesh #Supreme Court