The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Centre to explain in two weeks why it has not set up a permanent mechanism to monitor the undue accretion of assets by elected representatives as directed by it last year.
On Feb 16 last year, the apex court had said the undue accretion of assets by lawmakers was a “sure indicator” of the beginning of a failing democracy, which if left unattended, would lead to the destruction of democracy and pave way for “rule of mafia”.
It had then asked for a permanent mechanism to monitor theundue accretion of wealth by lawmakers.
On Tuesday, hearing a contempt plea filed by NGO ‘LokPrahari’, it said it was not issuing any notice but seeking a reply from thesecretary of legislative department of the Union of India why the court’sdirections were not complied with.
The NGO has claimed that certain directions issued by thecourt on Feb 16 last year have not been complied with.
The court also asked the secretary to explain what hisdepartment has done with respect to non-disclosure or part disclosure of assetswhich would amount to “undue influence” under the Representation ofPeople’s (RP) Act.
A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices DeepakGupta and Sanjiv Khanna asked the secretary to explain why Form 26, which everycandidate is required to fill during his nomination, does not contain a declarationon whether he or she has suffered any kind of disqualification under the RPAct.
At the outset, S N Shukla, secretary of the NGO, appearingin person, told the court that the Election Commission has complied with two ofits directions, including one on the disclosure of assets and source of incomeof candidates, their spouse or dependents.
He said one more direction given by the court for makingprovision in Form 26 for disclosure by candidates about securing of contractsof high-monetary value either from the central or the state government has beencomplied.