“Why No Action Against Politicians Whose Assets Rose By 500%? Is This The Attitude Of Indian Govt?” SC To Centre

The Logical Indian Crew

September 7th, 2017

Courtesy: Hindustan Times |  Image Credits: Livemint

Acting on a public interest litigation (PIL), the Supreme Court on Wednesday, September 6, took the centre to task for not disclosing action taken against politicians whose assets have jumped manifold between two elections.

The apex court has given the centre seven days’ time to submit the necessary information before it.

The PIL was filed filed by Lucknow-based NGO Lok Prahari, that wants amendment in election law to make it necessary for a candidate to disclose his and his family’s sources of income at the time of filing nomination form, Hindustan Times reported.

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) is tasked action against politicians whose assets have seen an enormous jump, in some cases by as high as 500%, after their elections. The government’s counsel failed to provide data on how many enquiries the CBDT initiated action against.

The advocate representing the centre said the government was “serious” about its intention to clean the system.

“All stakeholders need to be taken on board. Data needs to be elicited before we can suggest the changes,” he said. The advocate cited the Centre’s flagship project – Swachh Bharat (Abhiyan) – and said “It is not about cleaning of garbage only.”

The bench, however, was not convinced. It retorted: “This affidavit is not worth the piece of paper it’s written on … You are not averse to electoral reforms but have not placed any necessary details. Is this the attitude of the government of India? What have you done till now?”

The Supreme Court accused the centre of trying to get away with vague statements. “You better file a detailed affidavit. This affidavit which you have filed is nothing but typed papers. Do not make vague statements. If the CBDT has taken some action, please disclose what action has been taken,” the bench said, giving liberty to the government to furnish the data in a sealed cover … Give reasons if you do not want the information to be made public.”

Share your thoughts..

Related Stories

Assets And Income Of 98 MLAs & 7 MPs Under Scrutiny Of CBDT For Unexpected Rise

7-yr-old plea

Delhi HC Stays Demolishing Of Park After 7-Yr-Old’s Plea

Will Jail Environment Secretary If Govt Fails To Preserve Country’s Wetlands: Supreme Court

Lokpal Act

Lokpal Act Is A Workable Legislation, No Need To Delay Its Enforcement: Supreme Court

Voters File Petition

600 Voters File Petition At Bombay High Court To Find Out Where Did Their Vote Go

Government Can Now Reject Appointment Of Judge

Government Can Now Reject The Appointment Of A Judge On Grounds Of National Security

Latest on The Logical Indian

Get Inspired

Karnataka Auto Driver Turns His Auto Into An Ambulance At Night, Gives Free Rides To The Needy

News

Bengaluru: Shia Muslim Group Attacked India Today’s Office Over Aaj Tak TV Anchor Rohit Sardana’s Comment

News

President Gives Nod To New Amendment Of Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code

News

Lucknow: Medical College Directed By SC To Pay Rs. 10 Lakh To Students Who Were Illegally Admitted

News

Nitin Gadkari’s Private Secretary’s Firm Received Govt Aid In Violation Of Civil Services Rule

Awareness

Google Can Track Android Users Even As Their Location Services Are Turned Off: Quartz Report