Asset Disclosure Requirements in Elections

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh in the case of Ajmera Shyam v. Smt. Kova Laxmi & Ors. (2025) refused to interfere with the election of BRS MLA Kova Laxmi from Asifabad constituency, holding that mere failure to disclose assets does not constitute corrupt practice if not of substantial character. 

• It will not make the acceptance of the nomination improper, thus invalidating the election. 

What was the Background of Ajmera Shyam v. Smt. Kova Laxmi & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The case arose from the Telangana Legislative Assembly Elections, 2023, where Kova Laxmi of Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS) was elected from Asifabad constituency. 
• Kova Laxmi had disclosed her assets, liabilities, PAN, and sources of income (honorarium as Zilla Parishad Chairperson) in her election affidavit. 
• She submitted IT returns for 2022-23 but recorded "Nil" income for previous years from 2018 to 2022. 
• Appellant Ajmera Shyam challenged her election, alleging that the omission to reveal complete income details as per Form 26 affidavit amounted to improper acceptance of nomination and corrupt practice under Section 100 of the RPA. 
• The Telangana High Court had earlier refused to interfere with Kova Laxmi's election, which decision was appealed before the Supreme Court. 
• Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 requires candidates to file Form 26 affidavits disclosing assets, liabilities, and IT returns of the past five years. 
• The petitioner contended that non-disclosure of complete income details violated these requirements and constituted grounds for setting aside the election. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Supreme Court distinguished between substantial defects and minor technical non-compliances, stating "disclosure requirement as far as assets and educational qualification is concerned, should not be unreasonably stretched to invalidate an otherwise validly declared election over minor technical non-compliances that are not of substantial character." 
• The Court held that "the defect of non-disclosure mentioned is not of a substantial nature, for the same reason the Respondent No.1 cannot be considered to have indulged in a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 (2) of the Act." 
• Justice NK Singh observed that while Rule 4A requires disclosure of IT returns, non-disclosure would not be a substantial defect to declare the election void on grounds of corrupt practices. 
• The Court emphasized that "merely because a returned candidate has not disclosed certain information related to assets, courts should not rush to invalidate the election by adopting a highly pedantic and fastidious approach." 
• The judgment established that the true test is "whether the non-disclosure of information about assets in any case is of consequential or inconsequential import." 
• Referring to Lok Prahari v. Union of India & Ors. (2018), the Court noted that while non-disclosure of assets can amount to corrupt practice, in this case it was "not of a substantial nature."

What are Asset Disclosure Requirements in Elections? 

About:  

• Asset disclosure requirements were introduced to enhance transparency in the electoral process and enable informed voting by the electorate. 
• Form 26 under the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 mandates disclosure of assets, liabilities, educational qualifications, and criminal antecedents. 
• Candidates must file affidavits disclosing their movable and immovable assets, sources of income, and income tax returns for the preceding five years. 
• The objective is to prevent persons with disproportionate assets or undisclosed wealth from entering the electoral arena. 

Legal Framework:  

• Under Section 123 of the Representation of People's Act, 1951, corrupt practices include undue influence, bribery, and making false statements in nomination papers. 
• Section 100(1)(b) of the RPA provides that elections can be declared void if corrupt practices are committed by the returned candidate. 
• The Supreme Court in various judgments has held that material suppression or false declaration in affidavits can constitute corrupt practice. 
• However, the Court has consistently maintained that not every technical non-compliance amounts to substantial defect warranting nullification of elections. 

What is the Representation of the People Act, 1951? 

About: 

• The Representation of the People Act 1951 is India's foundational electoral law that governs the country's democratic processes. Enacted in 1951, it establishes comprehensive rules for conducting fair and transparent elections. 

Key Highlights: 

Major Sections: 

• Section 8: Disqualifies candidates based on criminal convictions, with specific provisions for different types of offences and imprisonment terms. 
• Section 29A: Enables political party registration with the Election Commission. 
• Section 123: Defines corrupt practices including bribery and undue influence. 
• Section 126: Prohibits displaying election material on TV 48 hours before polling (excludes print and digital media). 
• Section 126A: Bans exit polls during specified periods. 
• Section 100: Sets conditions for voiding elections due to malpractice. 

Core Features: 

The Act covers four main areas: 

• Election Procedures: Rules for conducting elections and resolving disputes. 
• Qualifications and Disqualifications: Eligibility criteria emphasizing ethical conduct. 
• Electoral Offences: Defines prohibited practices like bribery and booth capturing. 
• Election Commission Powers: Outlines regulatory authority and responsibilities. 

Electoral Offences Under RPA: 

The Act prohibits various corrupt practices including: 

• Offering gratification to voters or candidates 
• Interfering with voting rights 
• Appeals based on religion, caste, race, or community 
• Promoting hatred between different groups 
• Publishing false statements about candidates 
• Booth capturing 
• Misusing government resources for electoral advantage