‘Political witch-hunting’: Supreme Court refuses selective probe into ‘undisclosed’ wealth of MPs

Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Vishwanathan disposed of the contempt petition.

“Such a selective investigation could lead to political witch-hunting. We, therefore, decline this relief, at this stage,” the Supreme Court said on April 16, referring to its February 16, 2018, verdict.

The court held that no case of wilful disobedience was made out against the Union government and disposed of the contempt petition.

Background: PIL on electoral disclosures

• The contempt proceedings arose from a 2015 public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Lok Prahari seeking a series of reforms to enhance transparency in elections, including stricter disclosure requirements for candidates and mechanisms to check disproportionate growth in their assets.
• In its earlier ruling in 2018, the Supreme Court had accepted several of these suggestions, notably holding that non-disclosure of assets and sources of income by candidates and their associates would amount to a corrupt practice under election law.
• However, it had declined to order an investigation into specific legislators named by the petitioner.

Court against selective probe

Reaffirming its earlier reasoning, the Supreme Court emphasised that directing probes against a limited set of legislators, without a system applicable to all, would lead to selective scrutiny.

It underscored that in the absence of a permanent and uniform mechanism to monitor asset growth across all elected representatives, such targeted action could be misused for political ends.

Contempt plea: Allegations against Centre

The contempt petition, filed by the NGO through its general secretary S N Shukla, alleged that the Centre had failed to implement the court’s earlier directions, particularly those relating to mechanisms for addressing disproportionate increases in assets of legislators. The petitioner sought action against the authorities for alleged non-compliance.

Centre’s defence: No wilful disobedience

Appearing for the Union government, law officers submitted that there was no wilful disobedience and detailed the steps taken since the original judgment.

The Centre informed the Supreme Court that it had engaged with stakeholders, including the Lok Sabha Secretariat, which raised legal and procedural concerns about creating a dedicated mechanism within Parliament to monitor the asset growth of MPs.

It was also pointed out that existing frameworks, such as the Lokpal and coordination between agencies like the Election Commission and the Central Board of Direct Taxes, already provide avenues to examine discrepancies in asset disclosures.

Institutional constraints

The Lok Sabha Secretariat, in its response, maintained that establishing committees or dedicated cells within Parliament to investigate MPs could conflict with established parliamentary practices and overlap with the jurisdiction of statutory bodies like the Lokpal.

It also flagged practical difficulties in having parliamentary institutions scrutinise their own members.

No contempt, proceedings closed

After considering the submissions, the Supreme Court concluded that the government had not deliberately disobeyed its directions. Accepting the explanation placed on record, the Bench held that no case of contempt was made out and closed the proceedings.