13-April-2024-Editorial

CANDIDATES HAVE A RIGHT TO PRIVACY FROM VOTERS: SC JUDGMENT 

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgement concerning the declaration of movable assets by candidates contesting elections.  

The ruling touched upon the delicate balance between the right to privacy of the candidates and the voters’ right to information. 

Key Facts of the Case 

• The case originated from a petition filed by an MLA from Arunachal Pradesh. 
• The MLA challenged a 2023 Guwahati High Court judgement nullifying his election for not declaring ownership of three vehicles in his election affidavit. 
• The petition argued the MLA violated Section 123 of the Representation of People Act (RPA), 1951, by not disclosing the ownership of the vehicles. 
• The Supreme Court held that not disclosing private assets irrelevant to the candidature doesn’t constitute a “corrupt practice” under the RPA, 1951. 
• Such non-disclosure also doesn’t amount to a “defect of a substantial nature” under Section 36(4) of the 1951 Act. 
• The Court maintained that voters have the right to essential information for informed voting. 

Right to Privacy 

The right to privacy safeguards individuals from interference by both State and non-State entities. 

In the landmark 2017 case, K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India, the Supreme Court affirmed privacy as a fundamental right. 

Privacy is intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. 

About RPA Act, 1951 

• The RPA, 1951, governs election conduct, qualifications, and disqualifications of elected representatives. 
• It outlines election procedures, including nomination, voting, and dispute resolution. 
• Section 36(4) states that nomination papers cannot be rejected for defects that aren’t of substantial nature. 

Corrupt Practices under the RPA, 1951 

• Section 123 defines ‘corrupt practices’, including bribery, undue influence, spreading false information, and promoting enmity among citizens based on religion, race, caste, or language. 
• The Abhiram Singh versus C. D. Commachen Case (2017) highlighted that candidates cannot appeal for votes based on religion, not only their own but also that of the voters. 
• ‘Undue Influence’ is any direct or indirect interference hindering free electoral exercise. 
• Section 123(4) allows the disqualification of representatives for certain offences and corrupt practices. 

Significance of the RPA, 1951 

• The Act ensures the smooth functioning of Indian democracy by barring individuals with criminal backgrounds from representative roles. 
• It mandates candidates to declare assets, ensuring transparency and accountability. 
• Provisions against corrupt practices like booth capturing and bribery uphold the legitimacy and fairness of elections. 
• Only parties registered under section 29A of the RPA Act,1951 can receive electoral bonds, enhancing transparency in electoral funding. 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling highlights the importance of balancing transparency with individual privacy in electoral processes.  

While candidates have a right to privacy, voters’ rights to essential information remain paramount. The RPA, 1951, continues to play a pivotal role in ensuring the integrity and fairness of India’s democratic elections.