Supreme Court has recently mandated candidates aspiring to contest elections to also disclosure their source of income in addition to other aspects.
This is in line with plethora of court directives in the same domain.
What are the significant aspects of the verdict?
Pronouncing the verdict on a petition filed by the NGO, Lok Prahari, SC ordered one more directive for further refining the electoral process.
Adding to the growing body of judicially inspired electoral reforms, the SC has asked for the additional disclosure of income source by aspiring candidates.
The Centre has been asked to legislate on the same, along with the mandating the disclosure of wealth of the candidates, their spouse and dependants.
Further, SC has vouched for a permanent mechanism to investigate any disproportionate increase in the assets of lawmakers while in office.
The court has also stressed that non-disclosure of assets and their sources would amount to “corrupt practice” under Representation of People Act, 1951.
As the order might be perceived as judicial overreach into the lawmaking arena, the court has asked the parliament to legislate on its directives.
What forms the basis for a judicial intervention?
The act of voting is an expression of free speech, and that voters are rightfully required to be informed of all relevant details.
This logic had nudged the demand for candidates should furnish details of any criminal antecedents, educational qualifications and assets.
If disclosure of assets is mandatory, it is only logical to expect that the sources of income are also revealed, to establish conformity.
The importance for this clause is furthered by the fact that dramatic increase of assets is seen for many candidates in every successive election.
Notably, previous judicial orders drove the conception of ‘NOTA’ and the immediate disqualification of politicians from office upon conviction.
How does the future look?
Lawmakers amassing wealth through unethical means are concerns that need to be addressed through new norms.
The idea of a permanent mechanism to collect data about the assets of legislators and periodically examine them is laudable.
The court also envisions a body that would make recommendations for prosecution or disqualification based on its own findings.
It is now upon the Centre and the Election Commission to work out the modalities and powers for such authorities.
The larger message from the verdict is that a fully informed electorate and transparent candidature will be key components of future elections in India.
