New Delhi: Supreme Court Upholds Candidates' Privacy Rights in Asset Disclosure

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has reinforced the privacy rights of electoral candidates concerning the disclosure of their assets. The apex court ruled on Tuesday that candidates are not obligated to reveal every asset they or their dependents own, asserting that only those assets significantly influencing their public image or lifestyle need to be disclosed. This ruling came during a case involving Independent MLA Karikho Kri from Arunachal Pradesh, wherein the apex court upheld his election from Tezu constituency in the 2019 Arunachal Pradesh Assembly election.

The Supreme Court's decision marks a pivotal moment in safeguarding the privacy of candidates, highlighting that an electorate does not possess an absolute right to access every detail of a candidate's assets. The ruling sets a precedent, clarifying the extent of asset disclosure necessary for electoral transparency while respecting candidates' privacy.

Additionally, the Supreme Court dismissed a plea on Wednesday that sought to implement breathalyser tests for voters queued at polling booths during elections. The bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta declined to intervene with the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision, which had earlier dismissed the petition, deeming it as "more of a publicity interest litigation."

The plea, put forth by the Andhra Pradesh unit of the Janavahini Party, aimed to prevent voters from casting their ballots under the influence of alcohol, especially during the enforcement of the model code of conduct. However, the Supreme Court bench dismissed the plea, emphasizing that it seemed driven by publicity rather than a genuine legal concern.

The bench's response reflected skepticism toward the necessity of such measures, particularly given existing regulations on polling days, which typically prohibit the sale and consumption of alcohol and involve heightened police presence. The Supreme Court's dismissal reaffirmed its commitment to discerning between legitimate legal matters and those driven by publicity motives.

The Janavahini Party's efforts to enforce breathalyser tests for voters had initially commenced in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, where the plea was rejected on February 28. With the Supreme Court's subsequent dismissal, the issue has reached a definitive conclusion, underscoring the importance of upholding electoral integrity while respecting individual privacy rights.

In essence, the Supreme Court's rulings on both the disclosure of candidates' assets and the implementation of breathalyser tests for voters exemplify its commitment to balancing transparency with privacy concerns in the electoral process. These decisions serve as significant precedents, guiding future electoral practices and legal interpretations across the nation.

ALSO READ:

ALSO WATCH: