The Mother India
A Home page to achieve Electoral reforms, true democracy & citizens sovereignty in India
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's About Disclosure, Not Disqualification
--------Ajit
Ranade
chief economist
Election Commission Implements Supreme Court's Order
Last week, just a few days before the deadline, the Election Commission (EC)
issued an order implementing the judgement passed by the Supreme Court (SC) on
May 2. Through this order, the EC has modified the format of the nomination
papers filled out by candidates seeking to contest election. Candidates must now
disclose details of criminal background (if any), their assets, their
liabilities to public financial institutions, and their educational
qualification. Failure to do so, or furnishing false evidence can attract
rejection of nomination papers. But we must note that this order of the EC is
all about disclosure, not disqualification. The SC judgment (and the related
earlier judgement of the Delhi High Court) maintained that electors have a right
to know, so that they can make an informed choice among various candidates. And
keeping electors in the dark, especially about criminal antecedents, cannot be
consistent with a free and fair election. The relevant election law, or rather
the Representation of People Act, already has provisions which disqualify
persons who have been convicted of serious crimes from contesting elections. But
since the legal process and convictions take a long time, and cases can remain
pending in a hierarchy of courts, thus bypassing the technicality of "being
convicted", very few candidates are actually disqualified. In the meantime the
influence of criminals on the political process is increasing leaps and bounds.
This has been amply documented over several years, if not decades. The Law
Commission, in a detailed report has recommended that the RP Act be strengthened
considerably, to curtail this criminalisation of politics. The report has
recommended to Parliament that this loophole of pending cases be removed. Such a
modification of the RP Act would need legislative action in Parliament,
something that has not happened so far, despite sufficient multiparty consensus.
Hence until the law gets modified, the EC 's order will at least ensure some
degree of transparency. It will also mean that public and widespread
dissemination of self-declared criminal background of any candidate cannot
attract libelous litigation. Concerned citizens groups, apart from rival parties
will put some sunshine on shady pasts, self declared via affidavits. This can
only help, not hinder the democratic process. It is instructive to note that
government rules already require any applicant to any government job, to be
subjected to a much more thorough scrutiny. Since elected officials are also
deemed to be public servants, it is but natural that their candidacy also be
subject to some scrutiny. The EC's order has got politicians agitated, since
they feel that this executive order, amounts to the EC usurping legislative
turf. But as the Supreme Court said in its judgment, that while it recognizes,
accepts and respects the legislators' prerogative to make laws, it feels that
"if the field meant for legislature and executive is left unoccupied detrimental
to public interest, this Court [has] ample jurisdiction under Article 32 read
with Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution to issue necessary directions to
the Executive to subserve public interest." The SC has, thus, merely filled "the
void, in absence of suitable legislation" pending action by the legislature. The
EC has acted well within its mandate and within the Supreme Court's directives.
It might be noted, that 25 years ago, legilsators inserted Explanation 1 was in
Sub Section (1) of Section 77 of the RP Act. This enabled unaccounted money to
be brought into the election system by allowing expenditure of "others"
(including the political party, and friends and supporters of candidates), as
not being counted as the election expenditure of the candidate. For all these
years, Parliament has still not found time to rescind this mischievous
amendment. It is in this background that the Supreme Court has moved to fill the
gap in legislation.
If Indian democracy aspires to be on par with the advanced democracies of the
West, we must not resist steps that enable greater disclosure. After all, as a
famous poet once said, "what is freedom of speech if the tongue is cut off". Or
what is freedom of the press, if there is widespread illiteracy? In that spirit,
what is the meaning of freedom of choice (of electors) if that choice is
constrained by a complete blackout of information. Economists take pride in
India's growth rate (vis-ŕ-vis China's) since our growth is sweeter and
sure-footed, being embellished with democracy. But this democracy suffers
gravely from a huge governance deficits, and a lack of electoral reforms. The
EC's order is a step in the right direction.
Ajit Ranade
chief economist
abn amro bank, india
tel: +91.22.281.8008
fax:+91.22.281.8252
ajit.ranade@in.abnamro.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Save your country from criminal politicians”
Identify the importance of this web page, Do kindly propagate the URL in the net.
-----Tirumala Srinivas
URL: http://themoherindia.tripod.com