Enlarge Our Agenda

Dear Friends,

1. In all likelihood the parties will join hands to pass the Bill as proposed, or with some minor modifications within a few days - possibly by 26th July. The following seem to be some of the realistic options to make it harder for the Bill to be passed in such indecent haste:
   1. We should try and make both the leading parties understand the complete schism between public opinion and legislative action. In particular, the main opposition party, congress should understand that it has an obligation to force a larger debate on the issue, and study various facets it.
   2. If one or two major parties agree, there is a good chance that the Bill will be referred to a joint select committee. That will give us opportunity to cogently express our views, as well as mobilize informed public opinion.
   3. Our minimum goals on this legislation should be:

                                                         i.      Deletion of section 33A, sought to be introduced through section 4 of this Bill. This section seeks to foreclose all possibility of disclosures except those decreed by parliament by law.

                                                       ii.      Enlarge the disqualification under proposed section 8B (section 2 of this Bill), to cover more offences, and to make one charge framed sufficient to disqualify the candidate until he is cleared of it.

                                                      iii.      To make it more acceptable, a provision can be made by law that non-disclosure is a ground for rejection of nomination, but the RO will not have discretion to verify the truth of disclosures, or to reject nomination on grounds of suppression of information, or false disclosure. However, any counter affidavits filed questioning the veracity of information furnished shall also be made public. Any false disclosure or suppression of information will entail disqualification or an election petition, and criminal prosecution.

4. The idea of a nation-wide sample survey is an appealing one. CMS is best placed to consider its feasibility. Instead of several local polls, if one national survey is undertaken with the sponsorship of the media - both print and electronic - it will have a real impact. Wide publicity to the findings will galvanize people into action, and make parties pause and rethink.
5. If the Bill is not referred to the Select Committee, we should consider proposing amendments through a private member's bill. Ordinarily private Bills are doomed to failure. But forceful intervention of a few respected members will mobilize public opinion; and help us gain time. Friends in Delhi should consult experts on parliamentary practice like Dr Subash Kashyap, and identify the best means of generating a serious debate in Parliament. Sri Kuldip Nayar showed his willingness to propose amendments or move a private Bill. Members of left parties may be willing to propose a reasonable Bill. We should explore this option. 

2. If the Bill does pass quickly, then we should petition the President to exercise his power under Art. 111; under this article, "The President may return the Bill to the Houses with a message that they will consider the Bill, or any specified provisions thereof and in particular, will consider the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may recommend in his message..."

This power has, to the best of my knowledge, never been exercised by the President so far. Nor can this power be exercised lightly. But if the President is convinced that there is an unassailable constitutional case to do so, it will energize the nation. However impressive the political consensus among parties may be, the moral impact of a President's reasoned refusal to approve a Bill is tremendous. If the returned Bill is again passed by Parliament, the President has no option but to assent to it. But chances are, Parliament will be forced to reconsider the whole issue if the President returns the Bill with his message.

But such an act of the President is an extremely weighty, and serious one. It cannot be contemplated casually. Nor is it desirable for a president, to act whimsically. We need to make an impressive case to persuade the President. In my judgment, section 4 of the Bill, through which a new section 33 A is sought to be introduced in the RP Act, 1951, is violative of the fundamental right to information derived from Article 19, and the natural rights of electors flowing from the concept of democracy. We need to get the best legal advice from Constitutional experts, and draft the petition with extraordinary care and caution. Gen.Saighal and Dr Bhaskara Rao may kindly consult  Justice Sachar, Ms Kamini Jaiswal, Sri Sanjay Parikh, Ms Pinky Anand, and decide on a strategy. We need to take advice from renowned lawyers, and enclose their opinions to make it possible for the President to take our petition seriously.

And we need 100 prominent citizens who will endorse the petition. In addition to the 20 or so organizations, which are already partners in the National Campaign, we need to enlist the support and leadership of distinguished Indians from all walks of life. We need to draw up a list immediately and begin contacting them.

3.       If the Bill does become Law, we will then have to approach Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of section 4 (the proposed section 33 A of RP Act, 1951). Friends in Delhi are already in touch with legal experts. Both Sri LC Jain and Dr Bhaskara Rao are also consulting Sri Rajiv Dhawan, in addition to Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and PUCL team. 

4.      If the Bill, does become Law all is not lost. As I said before, the very insensitivity and unseemly haste exhibited by politicians in a self-serving cause may unite the people against the flawed political process. We need to enlarge our agenda, and build a truly national campaign from grassroots.

Such a campaign must have a clear set of well-defined, and broadly acceptable goals. And all of us must have serious, long-term, sustained commitment to the national campaign. It will be a long haul, and if any serious results flow within 2 years, we may consider our campaign extremely successful. 2 years is also a good time, because the Parliament elections are due in 2004. Electoral reforms should be the rallying point for launching a mass movement.

As opposed to the National movement for freedom, we have a difficult task. This is not a fight against the alien white ruler. In fact, this is not against any known enemy. Our struggle is not against any individual or party, but to cleanse the system and enrich democracy. Unity and sustained action for such a cause is far more difficult. Our struggle is more difficult than the 1974-75 movement against corruption. Then people had the naive belief that all it needed to improve things was to change the players. But now we are wiser. Rejection of one set of rulers, and installing another set will not make any real difference. What we need is a change in the rules of the game.

But we have certain advantages:

We may require more than one meeting during the next 2-3 days. Once we reach certain conclusions, a core team needs to be constituted for effective follow-up and coordination. May I request friends to participate in the meeting. Those who cannot, may kindly send their endorsement. Please confirm your participation to Dr.Bhaskara Rao at nbraocms@vsnl.com

With warm regards
 
Jayaprakash Narayan
National Cordinator
 
Lok Satta
401/408 Nirmal Towers
Dwarakapuri Colony, Punjagutta
Hyderabad - 500 082
Tel: 040 3350778/3350790
Fax: 040 3350783
E-mail: loksatta@satyam.net.in
url: www.loksatta.org