EC’s noises ring hollow, eats words it told apex court

Attacking political parties, the Election Commission has now taken the moral high ground saying that candidates have to disclose all their a...

Attacking political parties, the Election Commission has now taken the moral high ground saying that candidates have to disclose all their assets. What it glosses over is the fact that in its affidavit to the Supreme Court, it said just the opposite.

And in a striking parallel to what the political parties are saying now, the EC told the apex court then that only winning candidates should be made to disclose their assets after elections.

‘‘The assets of a person would be relevant not at the time of offering his candidature, but only if he is elected to a public office, so that the public is enabled to know whether assets disproportionate to his known sources of income have been acquired by him by misusing or abusing his public office,’’ the EC said, in its affidavit filed in February 2001.

Story continues below this ad

Further, the EC said that requiring a candidate to disclose his assets ‘‘may not be desirable’’ because of the practical problems he may face to provide such information. By way of an example, it said, ‘‘In a Hindu undivided family, the member of such family may not be even aware of his exact share in an undivided joint family property.’’

Criticising the Delhi High Court’s direction requiring the candidates to disclose their assets, the EC told the Supreme Court that ‘‘it also seems to be an unnecessary intrusion into the privacy of a citizen, merely because he has chosen to offer himself or as a candidate.’’

It also pointed out that ‘‘no other office seeker is required to furnish such information.’’ This is evidently a reference to the fact that a candidate for the civil services examination, for instance, is not required to disclose his assets. But he will have to do so when he is recruited.

So, rather than his assets, the election candidate should be made to disclose his liabilities and whether he has been filing his tax returns or not. ‘‘The voting public should be more concerned about the question whether the candidate is following a lawful avocation, paying his taxes, Government dues and about his over-dues to public financial institutions and charges on his/her properties,’’ the EC said.

Story continues below this ad

In its judgment delivered on May 2, the Supreme Court did accept the EC’s proposal about the candidate’s liabilities. But it did not accept the suggestion that the information about the liabilities should take the place of the assets. The apex court instead stipulated that the candidate should disclose both his assets and liabilities.

us india trade talks, us india trade negotiations, us india tariffs, us india trade relations, trump modi trade talks, india us commerce ministry, us tariffs on india, india exporters relief package, us india economic relations, india us trade barriers, us india trade deal, india us trade meeting, rajesh agarwal commerce ministry, india us trade dispute, india us bilateral trade

First after Trump imposed 50% tariff, US negotiator in Delhi for trade talks

Business4 hr ago

US trade team, led by Assistant US Trade Representative Brendan Lynch, to meet with Indian commerce ministry officials for first in-person talks after previous negotiations for trade deal failed. Talks paused due to US imposing additional 25% tariffs on India for buying Russian oil. US team expected to discuss future of talks during one-day visit.

View all shorts

Live Blog