SC urges Centre to make a permanent mechanism to track assets of lawmakers

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of India asked for an explanation from the Central Government as to why there is no permanent mechanism to keep an eye on the undue rise of assets of elected representatives. The apex court said last year that undue increase of assets by lawmakers indicated towards the beginning of failing democracy, which if ignored, would lead to destruction of democracy and give an easy way for “rule of mafia”.

NGO ‘Lok Prahari’ filed a contempt plea, and stated that it was not issuing a notice but asked for a reply as to why the court’s order was not being complied with from the secretary of legislative department from the Union of India. In addition, the NGO claimed that last year the court inquired from the secretary that what necessary steps have been taken by his department with respect of disclosure and part-disclosure which would amount to undue influence under the Representation of the People’s Act.

The bench hearing the matter pointed out that why every candidate has left Form 26 empty which is required to be filled to declare on whether he or she has suffered any kind of disqualification under the RP Act. There has been no action taken 

Acknowledging to the fact, the secretary of the NGO told the court that the Election Commission has complied with two of its orders like disclosure of assets and source of income of candidates, their spouses or dependents and three directions are still pending. Further he added that there has been no permanent machinery to look into or keep an eye on the rise in assets of the Parliamentarians, members of Legislative Assembly and Councils. The provision for non-disclosure of assets or part disclosure of assets has not come into force yet and no provision has been made in Form 26 to enable a candidate to mandatorily disclose whether he or she suffers any disqualification of any kind under the RP Act.

The apex court in its landmark judgment last year stated, disproportionate assets of elected representatives was a matter of concern for the citizens of a democratic society. The court had referred to Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution, which directs the state to make policy in favour the common good and guaranteeing that the economic system does not result in concentration of wealth.