Declare assets, criminal past: SC

Section 33B said ‘‘notwithstanding anything contained’’ in the Supreme Court judgment of May 2, 2002 or in the consequent order passed by the Election Commission on June 28, 2002, ‘‘no candidate shall be liable to disclose or furnish any such information, in respect of his election, which is not required to be disclosed or furnished under this Act.’’

The most important information that the 2002 Act had sought to withhold from the voters was the candidate’s financial details, which had been mandated by the apex court and the EC. The 2002 Act forbade any such pre-election disclosure and instead stipulated that the winning candidate shall declare his assets and liabilities to the presiding officer of the House to which he had been elected.

As a result of today’s ruling, every candidate will have to make a pre-election disclosure of not only his assets but also those of his spouse and dependants.

Another significant departure the Act made from the Supreme Court judgment was it exempted the candidates from disclosing their educational qualifications at the time of filing nominations. But the candidate will now have to tell the voters the extent to which he has studied.

The Act also provided that a candidate who fails to file information or gives false information about his criminal cases shall be liable to be punished through an election petition filed after the declaration of results. On the other hand, the EC’s order passed as a sequel to the Supreme Court verdict of 2002 empowered the returning officer to check the veracity of the candidate’s claims prior to the election and disqualify those found to have lied under oath.

The three judges of the bench headed by Justice M B Shah today delivered separate but concurring verdicts reinforcing the May 2002 judgment delivered by another three-judge with the same head. ‘‘There can be little doubt that exposure to public gaze and scrutiny is one of the surest means to cleanse our democratic governing system and to have competent legislatures,’’ Justice Shah said, adding that ‘‘right to vote would be meaningless unless the citizens were well informed about the antecedents of a candidate.’’

The apex court rejected the Centre’s plea that the voter’s right to information could not be termed as a fundamental right. Shah observed: ‘‘A voter is first a citizen of the country and apart from statutory rights, he is having fundamental rights conferred by the Constitution.’’

Justice D M Dharmadhikari called the 2002 Act a ‘‘half-hearted’’ attempt to reform the system, while Justice P V Reddi said the legislation did not make adequate provisions to fulfil the right to information of the voters.