Why no mechanism created to monitor assets of lawmakers: SC

Satya Prakash
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, March 12

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Centre to explain in two weeks why a permanent mechanism to monitor sudden rise in assets of lawmakers had not been set up despite a direction issued by it last year.

Terming undue accretion of assets by lawmakers as a “sure indicator” of the beginning of a failing democracy, the top court had in February last year said if left unattended, it would lead to destruction of democracy and pave way for “rule of mafia”.

The order – which had come on a PIL by an NGO -- ‘Lok Prahari’, mandated creation of a permanent institutional mechanism to continuously monitor assets and sources of income of legislators, spouses and associates, including dependents. It had also asked for appropriate action in case of a disproportionate increase in assets during the tenure of membership, including disqualification.

Without issuing notice to the Government, a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi on Tuesday asked secretary, Legislative Department, to explain why its directions were not implemented by the Centre. It asked him to explain what has been done with regard to non-disclosure or part disclosure of assets which amounted to “undue influence” under the Representation of People’s Act.

It also sought to know why Form 26 filled up by candidates at the time of filing of their nomination papers did not contain a declaration if they suffered any disqualification under the Act.

Lok Prahari secretary SN Shukla submitted the Election Commission had complied with two of its directions, including one on the disclosure of assets and source of income of candidates, their spouse or dependents.

Shukla said direction for making provision in Form 26 for disclosure by candidates about securing of contracts of high-monetary value either from the central or a state government had also been complied with.

However, three other directions remained unimplemented, Shukla said, adding no permanent machinery had been created to monitor undue accretion of assets of lawmakers and the provision for non-disclosure of assets or part disclosure of assets which would amount to “undue influence” too had not complied with.

Similarly, no provision had been made in Form 26 to enable a candidate to mandatorily disclose if he or she suffered any disqualification under the Act.

In its February 16, 2018 verdict, the top court had referred to Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution, which cast a duty of the State to ensure that the economic system did not result in concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.