Not every instance of non-disclosure of assets by a candidate is enough to nullify an election, the Supreme Court has ruled, stressing that the sanctity of the popular mandate must prevail over purely technical objections. A judicial victory founded on minor omissions rather than the people’s verdict, the court said, should be spurned unless grave irregularities are undermining the integrity of the poll. A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh underscored that courts must sharply distinguish between concealment of criminal antecedents, which it said goes to the root of electoral purity, and failure to disclose some details of assets or educational qualifications. The former, the court said, must be scrutinised “more scrupulously and dealt with more strictly” since criminalisation of politics was the “bane of the electoral system” and the reason behind Parliament’s insertion of Section 33A in the Representation of the People Act, 1951. By contrast, disclosure of assets and educational qualifications, though mandatory through Form 26 affidavits, are “attending requirements” meant to enhance transparency and voter awareness, not grounds for automatic disqualification. “Merely because a returned candidate has not disclosed certain information related to assets, courts should not rush to invalidate the election by adopting a highly pedantic approach, unless such concealment was of such magnitude and substantial nature that it could have influenced the election result,” the bench said.

Verdictum News Desk