| Syllabus: GS-II, Subject: Polity, Topic: Current affairs, Issue: Important Supreme Court judgements |
Context: Supreme Court judgment on asset declaration by electoral candidates.
Key observations made by Supreme Court:
- The Supreme Court ruled that voters do not have an absolute right to know all details of a candidate’s private life.
- Candidates are not required to disclose every movable property unless it constitutes a “sizable asset.”
- The court emphasized a candidate’s right to privacy regarding matters irrelevant to their candidacy.
- It stated that non-disclosure of certain movable assets depends on the value and relevance to the candidate’s candidature.
- Candidates suppressing information about high-value assets reflecting a lavish lifestyle could constitute undue influence.
- However, non-disclosure of low-value assets may not be considered a substantial defect.
| +1 advantage for mains(Acts/Rules/Guidelines)
Representation of the People Act, 1951 ● Section-123 include bribery, undue influence, false information, and promoting enmity between different classes of citizens based on religion, race, caste, community, or language. ● Section 123(2) deals with “undue influence,” which involves direct or indirect interference with the free exercise of any electoral right, including threats, social ostracism, or spiritual coercion. ● Section 100(1)(b) allows an election to be declared void if any corrupt practice is committed by a returned candidate or their election agent. ● Sections 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) enable a High Court to invalidate election results if there is improper acceptance of a nomination or non-compliance with constitutional provisions or election laws. |
