Johnson Cherian.
MLAs and MPs, who face investigation for possessing wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income, always tend to bounce back to power. This is a phenomenon seen in the past 25 to 30 years, the Supreme Court observed on Tuesday.
A Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and S. Abdul Nazeer asked whether this phenomenon, coupled with the mercurial rise in the assets of politicians just within a span of five years between two successive elections, was a product of ineffective investigation or of some “immunity” provided to them.
“If an MLA’s or MP’s assets have seen a 10X rise in 2019 from what he revealed in 2014, should you not conduct an enquiry into the very propriety of a person holding public office enjoying such phenomenal rise in his assets… The moment a candidate has shown 1000% increase in his income in the past five years, please have a mechanism to conduct an enquiry,” Justice Chelameswar addressed the government.
Attorney-General K.K. Venugopal responded that prompt criminal action for disproportionate assets is taken whenever the source of income of an MLA or MP is found bogus.
“Law enforcement agencies take action. Perhaps they would straightaway, even without a preliminary enquiry, register an FIR… Your Lordships should proceed as if the investigative agencies would take an objective view and take action,” the Attorney-General submitted.
Scoffing at this assurance, Justice Chelameswar observed that “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?”
Justice Chelameswar drew Mr. Venugopal’s attention to the 1993 N.N. Vohra Committee Report and the “caustic remarks” made in its about the criminalisation of politics and the nexus among politicians, criminals and bureaucrats.
The court asked why the disproportionate wealth details of MLAs and MPs, who are representatives of the people, should not be disclosed to the public. There is no reason why the law should provide these public servants any immunity, the court said.
“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?” a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and S. Abdul Nazeer asked the Centre.
Mr. Venugopal responded that the MLAs and MPs would claim discrimination if their income tax details were alone made liable for disclosure. Income tax details are exempted under the Right to Information Act.
“Yes, they (MLAs and MPs) would naturally claim discrimination… but should they form a class within a class?” Justice Chelameswar shot back.
At one point during the hearing, Mr. Venugopal himself acknowledged that knowing the PAN details of political parties may not assure a fool-proof income tax investigation into their assets.
“In case of political parties, businessmen who contribute do not want their names revealed. So they do not give cheques,” the Attorney-General submitted.
The hearing, on a petition filed by NGO Lok Prahari seeking a mechanism to investigate the source of income of politicians, saw the Centre give details of probe into the assets of 26 Lok Sabha MPs, 215 MLAs and two Rajya Sabha MPs in a sealed cover.
In an affidavit, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) informed the court that 98 MLAs and seven Lok Sabha MPs are under investigation for prima facie discrepancy between their assets and declared sources of income. Investigation into the assets of 42 MLAs and nine Rajya Sabha MPs is still pending. However, no discrepany was found in the value of assets and the declared/source of income of 117 MLAs, 19 Lok Sabha MPs and two Rajya Sabha MPs.
The CBDT’s investigation covers a list of 26 Lok Sabha MPs, 11 Rajya Sabha MPs and 257 MLAs handed over to the court by Lok Prahari. The NGO had claimed that the assets of the politicians in their list has seen a disproportionate growth in the past five years.
The court said the disproportionate assets cases against MPs and MLAs ought to be fast-tracked.
