The validity of the 2019 election of independent Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Karikho Kri from the Tezu Assembly constituency in Arunachal Pradesh has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of India in a recent ruling. 

The decision, made by the bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and PV Sanjay Kumar, carries significant implications for the disclosure requirements of candidates and the rights of voters to information about candidates' private lives.

The case originated from a challenge brought by Congress candidate Nuney Tayang before the Gauhati High Court, alleging that Kri had made false declarations in his election nomination paper and failed to disclose information about his assets. 

The High Court, in its ruling, held that Kri had not disclosed ownership details of certain vehicles owned by his family members, which it deemed essential for transparency in the electoral process.

However, a different stance was taken by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that voters do not possess an absolute right to delve deeply into a candidate's private life unless such information directly impacts their voting decision. 

The Court clarified that candidates need not disclose every minute detail of movable property unless it is of substantial value that could significantly influence voters' choices.

The apex court's decision rested on the argument that non-disclosure of assets by candidates or their associates, spouses, or dependents could constitute a corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 

Nonetheless, the Court stressed that each disclosure must be of a nature that directly impacts the voting process, preventing an overly intrusive scrutiny of candidates' personal lives.

Kri's defense centered on the claim that he was unaware of the ownership of the vehicles in question since they were owned by his family members. Concerns were also raised about the extent of disclosure required, with Kri pointing out that his total disclosures exceeded ₹7 crores, questioning whether minor items such as ties and pens should also be mandatorily disclosed.

The Supreme Court's ruling not only upholds Kri's election but also sets a precedent regarding the scope of candidate disclosure requirements and the limits of voters' rights to delve into private aspects of candidates' lives.

Case: Karikho Kri vs. Nuney Tayang and another,

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4615 OF 2023.

Click to read/download judgment.