Supreme Court lens on jump in politicians' wealth

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre to furnish details of the action taken against MLAs and members of Parliament whose assets had grown manifold during the intervening period between two elections.

A bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and S.A. Abdul Nazeer passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Lok Prahari, an NGO, that the present practice of candidates filing an affidavit disclosing their income must also give information about the source of income of the candidate and his/her spouse and dependents.

Senior advocate K. Radhakrishan, appearing for the Centre, told the court that the “government believes in action and is not averse to reforms. The Central Board of Direct Taxes had been taking action whenever it found there were unexplained known sources of income.”

He said while an investigation into the affairs of those contesting polls as a class was not undertaken, specific cases where there was reason to undertake verification were enquired into. 

It was pointed out that 113 MPs had shown themselves as social activists or housewives or those without any adequate source of income. However, their assets seemed to have gone up by 5-10 times, the petitioner said. 

Source of income of politicos questioned
Justice Chelameswar told the counsel that the Association of Democratic Rights had filed an affidavit indicating the number of legislators whose income had grown hugely in the past five years when they filed the first affidavit of assets and the subsequent affidavit.

The judge said: “If you say you (government) believe in action, you show your bona fides by filing an affidavit showing the action taken against those legislators whose income had grown manifold against known sources of income.” 

It also pleaded that candidates should declare whether they or their spouses/dependants have any contracts with the government or a public company, or any share or interest in a private company.

It was pointed out that 113 MPs had shown themselves as social activists or those without any adequate source of income. However, their assets seemed to have gone up by 5-10 times, the petitioner said. “The source must be declared to enable voters to decide whether the wealth acquired by the candidate is legitimate or not.