Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The undue accretion of assets by lawmakers was a “sure indicator” of the beginning of a failing democracy, which if left unattended would pave way for the “rule of mafia” & would lead to the destruction of democracy, stated the Supreme Court on Feb 16 last year. The Court asked for a permanent mechanism to monitor the undue accretion of wealth by lawmakers.
The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, asked for an explanation from the Centre within two weeks regarding not setting up of a permanent mechanism to monitor undue accumulation of assets by elected representatives as directed by it last year.
A Contempt plea was filed by NGO ‘Lok Prahari’ which was heard by the apex court on Tuesday. The Court stated it would not issue any notice but directed reply from the Secretary of Legislative department of the Union of India questioning why the court’s direction were not complied with.
On Tuesday, hearing a contempt plea filed by NGO 'Lok Prahari', it said it was not issuing any notice but seeking a reply from the secretary of legislative department of the Union of India why the court's directions were not complied with. An explanation was demanded by the secretary on what steps were taken by his department with respect to non-disclosure or part disclosure of the assets which would amount to “undue influence” under the Representation of People’s Act.
The NGO has claimed that certain directions issued by the court on Feb 16 last year have not been complied with.
The bench demanded an explanation from the secretary on why a declaration on whether any candidate has suffered any kind of disqualification under the Act, was not present/added on Form 26, which is required to be filled by every candidate during his nomination.
S N Shukla, secretary of the NGO told the court that two directions were complied with and three were not complied by the Election Commission. He told the court that the direction on disclosure of assets and source of income of candidates, their spouse or dependents were complied with. Another direction for making provision in Form 26 for disclosure by candidates about securing of contracts of high-monetary value either from the central or the state government has been complied with.
Three directions which were not complied with are first, non-disclosure of assets or part disclosure of assets provision would amount to “undue influence” has not been complied with. Second, no permanent machinery was created to track the undue accumulation of Parliament members and members of Legislative Assembly and Councils. Lastly, the Form 26 doesn’t contain any provision enabling the candidate to mandatorily disclose whether or not they suffer any kind of disqualification under the Act.
The undue accumulation of wealth in hands of any individual would go against the general welfare of the society and this would lead to “rule of mafia” over the rule of law by the questionable income of lawmakers.
On Feb 16 last year, the Supreme Court in the landmark judgement had stated that the matter of disproportionate assets of elected representatives should alarm the citizens and voters of any democratic country.
Article 38 & 39 of the Constitution of India declares that:
(2) The State shall, in particular, strive to minimise the inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations.
(a) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood; (b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good;
(c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment;
(d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;
(e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength;
(f) that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.
“Hence the state has to declare its policy towards securing the ownership & control of material resources of the community were distributed so as to the best subserve the common good and guaranteeing that the economic system does not result in concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment” stated the court.
A request was made by the NGO on creating a permanent mechanism to investigate the candidates whose assets have grown in a disproportionate manner during their tenure as MP’s and MLAs. It also requested for directions for disclose of income by the candidates contesting polls.
86540
103860
630
114
59824