News Excerpt:
A voter’s right to know about election candidates is absolute, but it doesn’t require them to lay out their life threadbare for examination as they too are entitled to “privacy,” the Supreme Court.
About SC’s Judgement:
- The Bench of SC ruled that a candidate's decision to maintain privacy on irrelevant personal matters isn't considered a 'corrupt practice' under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
- They clarified that such non-disclosure doesn't constitute a "defect of a substantial nature" under Section 36(4) of the RPA 1951.
- The Supreme Court, in its judgment, clarified that candidates are not obliged to expose every aspect of their lives to public scrutiny when declaring their assets during elections.
- The Court emphasized that the declaration of assets by candidates is meant to further democratic participation by citizens and enhance the right to information of the voters, enabling them to cast their votes rationally and intelligently.
- The Court distinguished that a candidate doesn't need to declare every item of movable property, such as clothing, shoes, crockery, stationery, and furniture, unless these items are of such value as to constitute a sizeable asset in itself or reflect upon the candidate's candidature in terms of their lifestyle.
- The Court stated that each case would turn on its own peculiarities regarding what would amount to a non-disclosure of assets of a substantial nature.
- While suppressing information about a collection of expensive watches from voters would be considered a substantial defect, the suppression of the value of simple, inexpensive watches owned by the candidate and their family members may not amount to a defect at all.
- Ultimately, the Court emphasized that each case would have to be judged on its own facts to determine whether the non-disclosure of certain assets is substantial or not.
- The judgment aimed to strike a balance between the right of voters to access relevant information about a candidate's assets and the candidate's right to privacy, acknowledging that not every minor detail needs to be exposed for public scrutiny.
|
Summary of the case
|
|
Rights of the Voters’ in India: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has granted certain rights to the voters. All people of the nation are granted these rights, which are protected by the nation's Constitution.The Indian Voters' Rights: Right to know: Voters have a right to know about the candidates running for office. Voters are entitled to know about a candidate's past performance, including any criminal history, financial situation, election platform, etc. Non-Resident Indians (NRIs') right to vote
Voting rights of Prisoners: Our constitution and the ECI regulations prohibit prisoners from casting ballots in the elections. Right Not to Vote, or None Of The Above (NOTA)
Voting Rights Tendered: Voters have the right to exercise this privilege if they believe that someone else voted on their behalf improperly. According to the Election Commission, such an individual must present a legitimate form of identification in order to prove their eligibility to vote and cast a ballot on a separate sheet. Voting rights of Disabled or Infirm Citizens: The purpose of this right is to protect the ability of individuals who are disabled or ill to vote and make sure that their voices are heard in a democratic society. In situations where an individual with a disability is unable to cast their ballot in person or by mail, the Election Commission will help these voters by accepting their ballots with the assistance of an Election Officer. |
