Poll Candidates Asset Disclosure: Supreme Court Ruling & Legal Guidelines

Poll Candidates don’t Need to Disclose Every Asset

Supreme Court recently held that candidates need not disclose every piece of information and possession in their election affidavit unless it is substantial in nature.

Table of Contents

Context

The Supreme Court recently held that candidates need not disclose every piece of information and possession in their election affidavit unless it is substantial in nature.
An independent candidate from Arunachal Pradesh was initially disqualified for failing to declare three vehicles in his affidavit, but the Supreme Court later overturned this.

Legal Requirements for Disclosure of Assets

Under Section 33 of the RP Act and Rule 4A of election rules, candidates must file an affidavit with their nomination papers disclosing criminal antecedents, income, assets, and education.
- The Supreme Court’s ADR Vs Union of India case in 2002 established voters’ right to know these details.
Section 33A added to the RP Act mandates the inclusion of criminal antecedents in the affidavit.
Section 125A of the RP Act states that not furnishing information, providing false information, or concealing information can result in imprisonment up to six months, a fine, or both.

Issues with Criminal Charges

There are challenges with candidates facing serious criminal charges running for elections.
Some evade full disclosure by leaving parts of the affidavit blank, a practice that was addressed in Resurgence India Vs EC (2013), ensuring all columns are filled.
ADR reported that 19% of the 2019 Lok Sabha election candidates faced severe charges like rape, murder, or kidnapping.

Recommendations for Reform for Disclosure

The Law Commission’s 244th report and the EC’s 2016 memorandum suggested electoral reforms, including:
- A minimum two-year imprisonment for false affidavits leading to disqualification.
- Day-to-day trials for cases of false affidavit filings.
- Debarment from elections for persons charged with serious crimes, provided the case was filed at least six months prior to the election.
Supreme Court Directives for Disclosure: In Public Interest Foundation Vs Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court directed candidates and political parties to publicly declare criminal antecedents in newspapers and electronic media thrice before elections.
While barring charged candidates could be misused politically, implementing stricter punishments for false affidavits and disqualifying offenders is recommended.
The Supreme Court’s orders for publicising criminal records must be strictly enforced, aiding voters to make informed decisions.