NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR ELECTORAL REFORMS
July 12th , 2002
Sri J. M. Lyngdoh
Chief Election Commissioner of
India
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road
New Delhi - 110001
Esteemed Chief Election
Commissioner,
The nation owes a debt of
gratitude to the Election Commission for its order dated June 28 directing
all candidates to disclose certain details along with their nomination. It
is particularly gratifying to note that the affidavit was made mandatory by
ordering that non-filing of the affidavit would entail rejection of
nomination. This is a significant milestone in the evolution of our polity,
and will certainly go a long way in furthering the cause of electoral
reforms and ensuring probity in public life.
As we are all aware, in the all
party meeting held on 8th July, most parties expressed certain
reservations about disclosure norms. While most of the arguments were
extraneous to the issue, one concern expressed by the parties seems to have
some merit in it. The Election Commission’s intention was obviously to
ensure that the candidates comply with the disclosure norms. Quite rightly
the Commission wanted to foreclose the option of perfunctorily signing the
affidavit and proforma without filling in the details. Therefore, para 14
(4) of the order provided as follows:
Furnishing of any wrong or
incomplete information or suppression of any material information by any
candidate in or from the said affidavit may also result in the rejection of
his nomination paper where such wrong or incomplete information or
suppression of material information is considered by the returning officer
to be a defect of substantial character, apart from inviting penal
consequences under the Indian Penal Code for furnishing wrong
information to a public servant or suppression of material facts before him:
Provided that only such
information shall be considered to be wrong or incomplete or amounting to
suppression of material information as is capable of easy verification by
the returning officer by reference to documentary proof adduced
before him in the summary inquiry conducted by him at the time of scrutiny
of nominations under section 36 (2) of the Representation of the People Act
1951, and only the information so verified shall be taken into account by
him for further consideration of the question whether the same is a defect
of substantial character.
The intent of the order
considering the totality of the circumstances is clearly to ensure
compliance, but not to frivolously reject nominations. The impeccable record
of the Election Commission since 1952 and the fact that we probably cannot
cite even a dozen instances of rejection of nomination on flimsy grounds out
of the 1,50,000 or so nominations filed in all elections clearly show that
the danger of frivolous rejections is minimal.
However political parties and
candidates who fiercely compete for people’s mandate, have legitimate, if
not well-founded, fears of this discretionary power being abused by rival
political parties, particularly those in power, using Returning Officers as
“unguided missiles”. This fear seems to be causing great anxiety and
resistance to disclosure norms. Also it is humanly impossible for a local
Returning Officer to verify the accuracy of the data furnished suo motu, or
on receiving objections, in the short span of time and limited resources at
his disposal. Therefore the fear of such a discretion being abused is
genuine. The Returning Officer should, however, make public affidavits filed
by rival candidates and others disputing the candidate’s disclosures. Para
14 (6) of the Commission’s order rightly provides for such a disclosure.
Under the circumstances, we, the
concerned citizens and non-partisan organizations who constitute the
National Campaign for Electoral Reforms respectfully appeal to you to
issue an immediate clarification amplifying the import of the Commission’s
intentions. Para 14(4) may be amended and it may be officially clarified
that the Returning Officer shall not have the authority to verify the
information furnished, and that the only stipulation is that the candidate
should fill all columns. Any concealment or false disclosure should
certainly constitute cause for criminal prosecution as well as election
petition. It may also be clarified that “ defect of substantial character”
means refusal to fill any details and leaving columns under any major head
blank. Perhaps the para can be reworded to differentiate between what
entails rejection of nomination, and what will invite prosecution and/or
election petition.
Given the public importance of
the issue, and the fact that it is widely reported that government proposes
to bring in an immediate legislation, we will be grateful if such a
clarification is issued at the very earliest. The National Campaign is
taking this liberty of making this unusual appeal only keeping in view the
importance and urgency of the issue. We once again reiterate our full and
unqualified support to the Commission’s relentless efforts to ensure free
and fair elections.
With warm regards
Jayaprakash Narayan
cc: 1. Sri T S
Krishnamurthy, Election Commissioner of India
2. Sri B B Tandon,
Election Commissioner of India
The Mother India
