Firdous Parveez Taj vs Yasmin Taj. Writ Petition 11100/2020 decided on 22 January 2021.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/360729/1/WP11100-20-22-01-2021.pdf
Relevant paragraphs: There is no dispute as to the legal requirement of disclosure inter alia of “assets” of the candidate and of spouse, both in terms of the State Election Commission Notification dated 14.07.2003 and the mandatory prescription in the Nomination Form itself; the said Notification has been issued pursuant to Apex Court decisions in Union of India vs The Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294 and PUCL vs. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399; the gist of the mandatory Notification states that: every candidate at the time of filing his Nomination paper for any election or bye election of Panchayat or Municipality shall furnish full and complete information in regard to inter alia the assets (immovable, movable, bank balances, etc. ) of a candidate and of the spouse & also dependants, in a duly sworn affidavit.
The word ‘assets’ is derived from the French word ‘assez’ meaning ‘sufficient’; a word is the skin of a living thought (O.W.Holmes. J.,); at times words have flexible contours of meaning depending upon other companion words and the purpose of the instrument in which they are employed; the word ‘assets’ is employed in Sec.73 of CPC which regulates the trial & disposal of Election Petitions vide Sec.23 of KMC Act; the Madras High Court has held to mean the assets as proceeds of the sale of the property in execution of a decree vide Ramanathan vs Subramania Sastrial 26 Madras 179; the Bombay High Court in Veilchand Chaganlal vs Musson 14 BOM LR 633 was of the view that all of man’s property, of whichever kind, which may be used to satisfy debts or demands existing against him constitute his asset; Sri P.Ramanath Iyer in “THE LAW LEXICON”, 3rd Edn. 2012, Butterworths Wadhwa at pages 130-131 opines: “An asset must be one for which a market value can be ascertained … property in general, all that one owns, considered as applicable to payment of his debts…”.
The word ‘asset’ employed in the Election Notification needs to be construed by placing on it a purposive interpretation; it needs to be given the widest amplitude regardless of its literal meaning since law is not the slave of dictionaries; that approach serves the purpose for which the said Notification has been issued as a subordinate legislation, pursuant to Apex Court decisions, supra; a restrictive meaning of the term if adopted as suggested by the counsel for the petitioner, would defeat the very purpose; in other words owning or possessing is not a component of the concept of “asset” as employed in the notification; viewed from this angle an agreement to sell for which consideration in part or full is passed on constitutes an asset and therefore the candidate is required to disclose the same in the affidavit accompanying the Nomination Form; a contra argument would defeat the purpose for achieving which law mandates disclosure of assets; the right of electors/voters to know the credentials of the candidate would be partly meaningless if the candidates do not disclose the amount (which may be in crores of rupees) paid to the vendor as consideration for the agreement to sell; such agreements, subject to all just exceptions may be assignable for consideration and thus they have marketability; therefore the contra contention cannot be sustained.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 