Janjivan Bureau / New Delhi : As lawmakers keep getting richer, the Supreme Court on Friday ordered that all candidates contesting elections would have to disclose their sources of their income along with that of their family members.
The landmark verdict came from a Bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar on a petition filed by an NGO, Lok Prahari–which wanted candidates to declare sources of their income, including those of their family members/close relatives.
While filing their nomination papers, candidates have been disclosing their assets, assets of their spouses, children and other dependents, but they were not revealing the sources of income, SN Shukla of Lok Prahari had contended.
The petitioner had demanded inclusion of a column in the nomination form to list details of a candidate’s sources of income.
Allowing the petitioner’s prayer, the Bench said, “Only those which require amendment of the law are not allowed as it is up to Parliament to take a decision.”
As many as 98 MLAs and seven Lok Sabha MPs—whose assets witnessed manifold increase in a short span of time—were under investigation, the Central Board of Direct Taxes told the Supreme Court in September 2017.
In an affidavit filed in the top court in September last year on disproportionate assets of elected politicians, the CBDT had said preliminary assessment of assets of 42 more MLAs was being examined.
The petitioner had alleged substantial increase in assets of 26 Lok Sabha MPs, 11 Rajya Sabha MPs and 257 MLAs as reflected in election affidavits.
Of the 257 MLAs, the CBDT had said 98 MLAs were found to have substantially increased assets and were being further probed.
The Income Tax Department would further investigate assets of seven of the 26 Lok Sabha MPs who had huge increase in assets, the CBDT had said, adding that it had shared the probe status and result with regard to elected representatives with the Election Commission.
No further probe had been taken up against any Rajya Sabha MP.
The CBDT had submitted the names of lawmakers under probe in a sealed cover to the top court which was hearing the PIL filed on disclosure of sources of income by the candidates when they filed nomination for elections.
The CBDT had filed its affidavit after the top court had asked the Centre to furnish details of the probe against lawmakers whose income shot up manifold within a short span of time.
It had expressed strong displeasure over the government not sharing with it details of a probe being conducted by CBDT against politicians.
“The affidavit you have filed is not even worth the piece of paper it’s written on…When an affidavit was placed before this court, all information about any inquiry going on should be placed,” it had said.
According to Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) that works for electoral reforms, assets of four current Lok Sabha MPs have increased by 12 times while 22 others declared five-fold increase in their assets.
A newly-elected Rajya Sabha MP declared an asset growth of over 21 times since his last affidavit. Seven other newly elected Rajya Sabha MPs have declared two-fold asset increase, ADR—an intervenor in the case–said.
During the last hearing, the Centre’s counsel had asserted that the government was all for electoral reforms, saying, “The Swachh Bharat (Abhiyan) is not only about cleaning of garbage…it’s also about free and fair election…cleaning of the electoral system.”
But the Bench was not impressed. “The government is saying they are not averse to some reform. Necessary information should be there on record (in the court).”
The Election Commission had supported the NGO’s plea, saying disclosure of sources of income was necessary for “healthier democracy”.
Under the current law, a candidate is required to disclose details of assets and liabilities for self, spouse and three dependents in Form 26 at the time of filing of nomination paper but not the source of income.
Another Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra is seized of a PIL seeking lifetime ban on convicted politicians from contesting elections and holding party posts.
SC rulings on electoral reforms since 2003
March 2003: A voter has a fundamental right to know candidates’ qualifications, assets, liabilities and criminal antecedents, if any.
July 5, 2013: Freebies promised by political parties in poll manifestos vitiate the electoral process; asks EC to frame guidelines to check it in consultation of political parties.
July 10, 2013: An MP/MLA convicted of any offence attracting a punishment of two years or above will be disqualified immediately. Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act that allowed a convicted MP/MLA to continue in office if he/she appealed in a higher court within three months of conviction declared unconstitutional.
September 13, 2013: Knowing about a candidate is the voter’s natural right in a democracy, and non-disclosure of information by a contestant in his/her affidavit, leaving the relevant columns blank, will result in rejection of the nomination.
September, 27, 2013: Voters get the option of none of the above (NOTA) in EVMs.
February 5, 2015: A legislator’s election can be declared “null and void” for non-disclosure of his/her criminal antecedents as it created an impediment in the free exercise of electoral right.
January 2, 2017: Election is a secular process and if votes are sought in the name of religion, race, caste, community or language of a candidate, his agent or that of voters it would amount to corrupt practice–a ground to set aside elections.
