Transparency in candidate disclosure

Source-This post on Transparency in candidate disclosure? has been created based on the article “Is transparency lacking in candidate disclosure?” published in “The Hindu” on 12 April 2024.

UPSC Syllabus-GS Paper 2 – Salient Features of the Representation of People’s Act.

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

What does the existing law and courts judgement specify about disclosure of information?

1) RPA 1951-As per section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, all contesting candidates need to file their nomination paper for elections along with an affidavit in a prescribed format.

2) The Supreme Court Judgment- The Supreme Court in Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) Vs Union of India (2002) held that voters have the right to know about the criminal antecedents, income and asset details of the candidate and his/her dependents .
This resulted in Section 33A being added to the RP Act that requires details of criminal antecedents to be part of the election affidavit.

3) RPA 1951– As per section 125A of the RP Act, if a contesting candidate fails to furnish required information; giving false information or concealing any information in the nomination paper or affidavit then he shall be liable to be punished with imprisonment up to 6 months or fine or both.

Read more- Electoral Reforms in India

What are the problems with these existing laws?

1) Disqualification on trivial grounds-The election of an independent candidate from Arunachal Pradesh was set aside by Gauhati High Court because he failed to declare three vehicles as assets in his election affidavit. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision and held that non-disclosure of information that is not substantial cannot be considered an attempt to unduly influence the voters.

2) Circumvention of rule-Many contesting candidates circumvented the requirement of rule 4A by leaving certain columns blank and filing incomplete affidavits. This prompted Supreme Court in Resurgence India Vs EC (2013) to issue an order that all columns need to be filled appropriately.

What should be the way forward?

The Law Commission in its 244th report on ‘Electoral Disqualifications’ (2014) and EC in its memorandum on ‘Electoral reforms’ submitted in 2016 had provided certain recommendations. Such as-

1) If someone is found guilty of submitting a false affidavit, they must face at least two years in prison and be disqualified from running for office. The trials in these cases must be conducted daily.

2) Persons convicted by a competent court with offences punishable by imprisonment of at least five years should be debarred from contesting in the elections.

3) The Supreme Court’s order in Public Interest Foundation Vs Union of India (2018) that directed candidates as well as political parties to issue a declaration about criminal antecedents, at least three times before the election, must be strictly implemented. This would enable a discerning voter to exercise a well-informed choice.

Question for practice

What does the existing law and courts judgement specify about disclosure of information? Highlight the problems with these existing laws?