How much about a candidate is a voter entitled to get information about? How does the right to privacy square with the right to adult franchise and the voters’ right to know? This week, the Supreme Court (SC) laid down some ground rules in this still-evolving area of jurisprudence. Adjudicating a case from Arunachal Pradesh, the top court held that a candidate’s right to privacy remains intact for matters irrelevant to voters or his/her public role, and clarified that candidates are not mandated to reveal every piece of asset owned by them or their dependents unless those items significantly influence their public image or lifestyle. Non-disclosure of each and every asset owned by a candidate would not amount to a defect, the SC held.
Though the decision’s impact was limited to the fate of an independent lawmaker in the northeastern state, its ramifications are likely to be significant in a country which sees a clutch of elections every year. The Court’s attempt to strike a balance between the voters’ right to know and the candidate’s right to privacy will add to a growing pool of judgments that have steered electoral reforms to ascertain transparency, accountability and fairness in the democratic processes.
When read alongside the electoral bonds judgment, where the top court upheld the citizen’s right to know about political funding of parties, Tuesday’s verdict shows that the jurisprudence on striking a balance between transparent elections and shielding the right to privacy is still evolving. While such a balance is desirable, the judiciary must also be aware of the possibility of misuse of the privacy clause by some elements to hide information from the voter. What is required is integrity and a good-faith commitment to the voter from both candidates and political parties. Only this will strengthen India’s democracy.
