Allahabad High Court: In a public interest litigation (‘PIL’) regarding non-publication of verification reports made by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (‘CBDT’) of the asset disclosure forms of the election candidates, the Division Bench of Manjive Shukla and Rajan Roy, JJ., stated that prima facie, from the documents on record it appeared that if at all the verification reports had to be published, it was to be published by the Election Commission of India (‘ECI’). Accordingly, the Court directed ECI to furnish an affidavit in this regard.
Background
In the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2018) 4 SCC 699, it was held that the disclosure of assets by candidates for election in Form 26 was to be verified by the CBDT, and the verification reports were to be sent to the ECI. According to the petitioner, the ECI was required to put the verification reports in the public domain, which was not done.
The ECI contended that the CBDT was required to publish the information, but the CBDT denied any such obligation.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court stated that, prima facie, from the documents on record, it appeared that if, at all, the verification reports had to be published, it was to be published by the ECI. Accordingly, the Court directed the ECI to file an affidavit regarding its obligation to put the verification reports in the public domain and the mechanism for the same, while keeping in mind the documents being relied upon by the petitioner.
Regarding the ECI’s contention that the aforesaid mechanism was to be developed by the Government of India, the Court noted that the Union of India had not been impleaded as an opposite party in these proceedings.
“The judgment of the Supreme Court was passed in 2018; we are now in 2025, and it has not been given effect.”
The Court stated that, prima facie, the ECI appeared to be the statutory body that should put the verification report as received from the CBDT in the public domain, especially as the correspondence took place between the ECI and CBDT in this regard. The mechanism should also be established by the ECI, an independent body. However, considering the ECI’s stand that it was the Union’s obligation and to resolve this important issue, the Court opined that it would be necessary and proper to implead the Union through Ministry of Home Affairs in these proceedings, which were in public interest, for issuing substantive directions in furtherance of the Supreme Court’s directions in Lok Prahari (supra) and the issue of publishing the verification reports.
Accordingly, the Court directed impleadment of the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, through its Secretary. The Court further directed that a responsible officer from the ECI and the Ministry of Home Affairs shall join these proceedings through video conferencing.
The matter was listed for 15-09-2025.
[Lok Prahari v. Election Commission of India, PIL No. 29990 of 2021, decided on 11-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: S. N. Shukla (Petitioner in person)
For the respondent: Senior Advocate O. P. Srivastava, Kaushlendra Yadav, Anupriya Srivastava, Kushagra Dikshit, Manish Misra, and Neerav Chitravanshi
