In a scathing comment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that MLAs and MPs, who face investigation for possessing wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income, always manage to bounce back to power.
The Bench also asked the government why disproportionate wealth details of legislators, who are representatives of the people, should not be disclosed to the public.
While hearing a petition filed by NGO Lok Prahari, seeking amendments to the Representation of People's Act, a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S Abdul Nazeer wondered if this phenomenon, when coupled with the huge rise in the assets of some politicians in a span of five years between two successive elections, was the result of ineffective investigation or of some "immunity" provided to them.
"If an MLA's or MP's assets show a 10X rise in 2019 from what he revealed in 2014, should you not conduct an inquiry into the very propriety of a person holding public office enjoying such phenomenal rise in his assets... The moment a candidate has shown 1000 per cent increase in his income in the past five years, please have a mechanism to conduct an Inquiry," Justice Chelameswar told Attorney General KK Venugopal.
After hearing the parties, the bench reserved its order.
It further told the Government, "You say the presumption is that I-T will act objectively, but the records of this court and especially the (NN) Vohra Committee report indicated that the cases against MPs and MLAs just don't progress. Is it not time that we say something more and have a more effective mechanism?"
To Venugopal's stand that action for disproportionate assets is taken whenever the source of income of an MLA or MP is found bogus, the bench retorted, "In the past 25 to 30 years, we have seen investigative agencies take no action against such MLAs and MPs. They tend to get back to their same positions. Is it not time to do more?"
Referring to a report filed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in a sealed cover, which contained names of at least seven MPs with assets disproportionate to their known sources of income – with assents of at least four politicians growing 10 times between two elections – the petitioner said, "These names are at least two years old."
The court said details of disproportionate wealth of MLAs and MPs, who are public representatives, must be disclosed to the public. Why should the law give immunity to public servants?" the court asked.
"Even information with respect to their (MPs and MLAs) income tax details should be open for disclosure... Why should information relating to the representatives of the people, who are public servants, get immunity?"
Though agreeing with the bench, Venugopal said that perhaps the politicians could claim discrimination against them and could also hide behind the cloak of privacy rights.
However, Justice Chelameswar retorted: "Yes, they (MLAs and MPs) would naturally claim discrimination... but should they form a class within a class?
The Bench said
Justices J Chelameswar and S Abdul Nazeer were hearing a petition filed by NGO Lok Prahari
“The moment a candidate shows 1000% increase in income in 5 years, have a mechanism to conduct an Inquiry”
“The presumption is that I-T will act objectively, but cases against MPs and MLAs just don’t progress”
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Supreme Court")
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}