The Supreme Court held that an election candidate has a right to privacy from voters.
So, no need to lay out every scrap of his or her personal life and possessions, past and present, for the electorate to examine with a magnifying glass.
The candidate’s choice to retain his privacy on matters which were of no concern to the voters or were irrelevant to his candidature for public office did not amount to a ‘corrupt practice’ under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
Such non-disclosure would not amount to a “defect of a substantial nature” under Section 36(4) of the 1951 Act.