Last Updated:
The judges further noted that the ECI, being an independent statutory authority, ought to have created a mechanism to ensure the verified information is made accessible
Counsel for the ECI, senior advocate OP Srivastava, contended that the obligation lay with the Income Tax Department. (PTI)
The Allahabad High Court has expressed concern over the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) failure to publish reports verifying election candidates’ asset declarations, despite a Supreme Court ruling on the matter dating back to 2018.
A bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Lok Prahari, represented by its General Secretary and retired IAS officer SN Shukla. The petition pointed out that the Supreme Court had, in its February 2018 judgment, directed that disclosures made by candidates in Form 26 be verified by the Income Tax Department, with the resulting reports to be sent to the ECI and placed before the public.
Recommended Stories
The court was informed that while correspondence had taken place between the ECI and the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in the years following the apex court’s ruling, the reports were never released to citizens. Shukla argued that the non-publication of such documents defeats the very purpose of the Supreme Court’s order, which was aimed at enhancing transparency in the electoral process.
Counsel for the ECI, senior advocate OP Srivastava, contended that the obligation lay with the Income Tax Department. However, the department’s lawyers denied this responsibility, leaving the High Court to remark that, at least prima facie, the duty rested with the Election Commission.
“The judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court was passed in 2018 and we are now in 2025 and it has not been given effect,” the bench observed, highlighting the protracted delay in implementing the directive.
The judges further noted that the ECI, being an independent statutory authority, ought to have created a mechanism to ensure the verified information is made accessible. At the same time, the commission argued that such a mechanism must be developed by the Government of India.
Since the Union of India had not been made a party to the proceedings, court directed that the Ministry of Home Affairs be impleaded as a respondent. It also recorded the assurance of Deputy Solicitor General SB Pandey, who will represent the Union government in the matter.
The case has now been listed for September 15. On that date, the court has ordered that responsible officers from both the ECI and the Ministry of Home Affairs join the proceedings through video conferencing. The Union government has also been asked to file an affidavit responding to the PIL as well as to the questions arising from the Supreme Court’s directions.
About the Author
Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr…Read More
Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr… Read More
view comments
- Location :
Prayagraj, India, India
Read More
