Supreme Court: Election candidate's right to privacy

Supreme Court: Election candidate's right to privacy

GS-2: Indian Polity

(IAS/UPPCS)

Relevant for Prelims:

Supreme Court, Right to Privacy, Article 21, Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act (RPA)-1951.

Relevant for Mains:

About the right to privacy, main facts related to the case, implications of the Supreme Court's decision, Importance of the Representation of the People Act-1951, Conclusion.

13/04/2024

Source: Indian Express

Why in news:

Recently, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that candidates contesting elections are not required to declare every movable asset they possess.

  • The Supreme Court said that the voter does not have an absolute right to know about each and every asset of the candidates in the election and that the candidate has the right to privacy in matters which are irrelevant to his candidature. According to the court, candidates also have the same right to privacy as voters.

Key facts related to the case:

  • The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by an MLA from Arunachal Pradesh, challenging a 2023 Gauhati High Court decision, in which his election was declared invalid for not declaring three vehicles as his property in his affidavit filed in the form attached with the Election Conduct Rules of 1961.
  • The petition states that the election candidate did not declare the ownership of the said vehicles due to which he was held to have committed "corrupt practice" under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951.
  • The Supreme Court held that a candidate's choice to maintain confidentiality on matters that were of no concern to voters or were irrelevant to his candidature for public office, does not amount to "corrupt conduct" under Section 123 of the RRA, 1951.
  • Also such non-disclosure will not amount to “defect of material nature” under Section 36(4) of the 1951 Act.
  • The Court clarified that voters have the right to disclose information which is necessary to choose the candidate for whom the vote should be cast.

Implications of the Supreme Court's decision:

  • Clarifying disclosure obligations: The Supreme Court judgment provides clarity regarding disclosure requirements of movable assets by election candidates. This clarifies the need for transparency while avoiding unnecessary burden on the candidates.
  • Balancing transparency and privacy: The objective of this decision is to strike a balance between the voters' right to information and the candidates' right to privacy. It ensures fair and informed electoral processes.
  • Reaffirming electoral principles: By overturning the High Court decision and validating Karikho Cree's election victory, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that election challenges must be based on substantive issues related to the candidate's qualifications and adherence to electoral laws.

About Right to Privacy:

  • It is a fundamental right under Part III of the Indian Constitution which is protected as a part of the freedoms guaranteed under Article 21 as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty.
  • The right to privacy protects the individual from interference by both state and non-state actors and allows the individual to make autonomous life choices.
  • K.S.Puttaswamy vs. Union of India case: In the year 2017, the Supreme Court had declared the right to privacy as a fundamental and inalienable right in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India.

Representation of the People Act, 1951

Provision:

  • This Act regulates the conduct of elections and the eligibility and disqualification of elected representatives.
  • It specifies the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of the legislative houses of Parliament.
  • It also provides for curbing corrupt practices and other crimes.
  • It lays down the procedure for settling doubts and disputes arising out of elections.
  • Section 36(4) of the 1951 Act mentions that the Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper which is not of correct character on the ground of any defect.

Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:

Corrupt Practices:

  • This section 123 defines 'corrupt practices' as including bribery, undue influence, false information and any act to prejudice the interests of citizens of India on grounds of "religion, race, caste, community or language" by a candidate in order to further his chances at election and to promotes feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes.
  • In the Abhiram Singh vs. C. D. Comanche case (2017), the Supreme Court ruled that candidates are prohibited from appealing for votes not only on the basis of their religion but also on the basis of the religion of the voters.

Undue Influence:

  • Section 123(2) of the Act addresses undue influence, which includes direct or indirect interference by a candidate, agent or any other person, which interferes with the free exercise of electoral rights.
  • It may include threats of harm, social ostracism, expulsion from a caste or community or pressure based on hypothetical consequences.

Disqualification:

  • Section 123(4) allows an elected representative to be disqualified for committing certain offences, corrupt practices, failure to declare election expenses, or having interest in government contracts or works.
  • Section 123(4) widens the scope of corrupt practices to include deliberate dissemination of false statements for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election.

Significance of this Act:

  • This Act is important to maintain the dignity of Indian democracy as it decriminalizes Indian politics by banning persons with criminal background.
  • This Act obliges every candidate to declare his assets and liabilities and maintain an account of his election expenses.
  • This Act ensures candidate accountability and transparency in the use of public funds.
  • It prohibits corrupt practices like booth capturing, bribery or incitement of hostilities, etc., which ensures the validity and free and fair conduct of elections.
  • This Act ensures transparency in electoral funding as it is mentioned in this Act that only those political parties will be eligible to receive electoral bonds which are registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Conclusion:

Right to privacy is a fundamental right. Under this right, the Supreme Court has recently given a decision to free the election candidates from the obligation to declare every movable property owned by them. This decision will strengthen democracy.

------------------------------------------------

Mains Question:

Discuss the implications of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court on the right to privacy of election candidates with regard to disclosure of assets.