Relevance : GS Paper II
Theme of the Article
Non-disclosure of information and filing of falsities in election affidavits can’t be treated equally.
Why has this issue cropped up?
Recently, a PIL was filed in the Supreme Court against PM Modi for filing a false affidavit.
The Concern
- We are yet to see any strict action taken in this regard.
- Hence, it is important to look into RPA and examine its effectiveness.
The RPA
- RPA mandates all candidates to furnish basic information.
- Failure to furnish information or filing false information is a penal offence..
- However, it does not result in disqualification of candidate.
- Further, it disqualifies any candidate found guilty of corrupt practice from contesting the election.
- Courts’ silent stance has led to the understanding that filing false information does not amount to corrupt practice.
Supreme Court Verdicts
- In Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar&Ors (2015), the court ruled that the voter has right to know the candidate.
- InLokPrahari v. Union of India &Ors (2018), the court held that non-disclosure of information, is a corrupt practice.
Failure of the Supreme Court
- A petition was filed in the SC in 2018 seeking declaration of the filing of false affidavits a corrupt practice. However, SC expressed its inability to direct a relevant legislation.
Way forward
- It is high time the SC clarifies that filing false affidavits constitutes a “corrupt practice”
- Increase the punishment under Section 125-A to a minimum of two years;
- Conviction underSection 125-Ashould be a ground for disqualification of candidates.
Conclusion
Changes are needed to ensure that the voter’s right to information remains paramount, and the candidate’s constitutional right to contest is subservient to it.