When is moveable asset sizeable enough to declare? It depends, says SC

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.

Scroll to Top