SC says minor non-disclosure of assets cannot void election

Not every instance of nondisclosure of assets by a candidate is enough to nullify an election, the Supreme Court has ruled, stressing that the sanctity of the popular mandate must prevail over purely technical objections.

- Utkarsh Anand

A judicial victory founded on minor omissions rather than the people's verdict, the court said, should be spurned unless there are grave irregularities undermining the integrity of the poll.

‘A bench of justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh underscored that courts must sharply distinguish between concealment of criminal antecedents, which it said goes to the root of electoral purity, and failure to disclose some details of assets or educational qualifications. The former, the court said, must be scrutinised “more scrupulously and dealt with more strictly” since criminalisation of politics was the “bane of the electoral system” and the very reason behind Parliament's insertion of Section 33A in the Representation of People Act, 1951.

By contrast, disclosure of assets and educational qualifications, though mandatory through Form 26 affidavits, are “attending requirements” meant to enhance transparency and voter awareness, not grounds for automatic disqualification.