Election Commission of India
(→Amendment quashed by SC in 2003) |
(→See also) |
||
| Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
[[Election Commission of India]] | [[Election Commission of India]] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
[[Election expenditure: India]] | [[Election expenditure: India]] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
[[Election laws, rules. procedures: India]] | [[Election laws, rules. procedures: India]] | ||
Revision as of 13:26, 20 October 2017
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. Readers will be able to edit existing articles and post new articles directly |
Contents |
Reforms
Govt thwarts EC bid to bar utility bill defaulters
Govt thwarts EC bid to bar utility bill defaulters, October 9, 2017: The Times of India
The government has rejected a proposal from the Election Commission (EC) to amend the Representation of the People Act to bar candidates from contesting parliamentary or assembly elections if they have not cleared their dues such as house rent in government accommodation, electricity and water bills.
The EC had in a communication to the law ministry requested amending the election laws to include failure to clear dues of public utilities as a disqualification from contesting Lok Sabha and assembly polls.
Barring candidates will require amendment to Chapter III of the RP Act which deals with electoral offences. A new clause will have to be inserted therein for disqualification “on the ground of being a defaulter of public dues“.
However, in its response to the election watchdog, the law ministry had said the proposal was “not desirable“. According to the law ministry , the ban would not be desirable as the authority issuing no-dues certificate or no-objection certificate to a candidate could be biased and may not give the required papers.
The ministry also said in cases of dispute on the dues, the matter could be referred to a court and may take time to settle. In such cases, it would not be desirable to deny the candidate with the nodues certificate.
In July , 2015 the Delhi High Court had through an order asked the EC to “consider the possibility , if any, of putting any impediment to a defaulter of public dues contesting election, to ensure quick recovery of the said dues“.
Based on the judgment, the commission had recently made it mandatory for candidates contesting polls to furnish a `no-dues certificate' from the agency providing electricity, water and telephone connections to their accommodation.
This led to some candidates missing filing their nomination papers in the recent assembly polls as they had failed to get the required no-dues certificate. There was, however, no legal backing to such instructions from the EC.
Election commissioners, selection of
Debates in Constituent Assembly, 1949; subsequent changes
Right from the time the Constitution was being finalised through debates in the Constituent Assembly in 1949, there has been unanimity that elections must be insulated from executive interference.
The Fundamental Rights Committee had recommended recognising “independence of elections and the avoidance of any interference by the executive in the elections to the legislatures“ as a fundamental right. But, after long debate, the Constituent Assembly , in the words of B R Ambedkar, resolved that “while there was no objection to regard the matter as of fundamental importance, it should be provided for in some other part of the Constitution and not in the chapter dealing with fundamental rights“.
The original draft Constitu tion had provided that the chief election commissioner and election commissioners would be appointed by the President.Many members had expressed reservations over giving unbridled powers to the PM to choose a person of his choice as the CEC. They felt such a personalised selection process was sure to impede the independence of the commission.
This had forced Ambedkar to amend the original draft provision. The amended version, which is now Article 324(2), said, “The Election Commission shall consist of the CEC and such number of other election commissioners, if any, as the President may from time to time fix and the appointment of CEC and other election commissioners shall, subject to the provisions of any law made in that behalf by Parliament, be made by the President.“
`Subject to law made by Parliament' was inserted to keep the doors open for devising a suitable mechanism in future. For four decades, the EC was a single-member body with the CEC as its head. From October 16, 1989 till January 1, 1990, it became a three-member body . From January 2, 1990, when T N Seshan became CEC, and up to September 30, 1993, it again became a singlemember commission.
For decades, the commission was subservient to the ruling party -in fixing poll schedule and blinking at electoral malpractices. Seshan changed it all. He gradually assumed grotesque independence and recklessly cracked the `model code of conduct' whip. He refused all requests from the ruling party, even for postponement of bye-elections involving Sharad Pa war and Pranab Mukherjee.
An upset government brought an ordinance in 1993 to rein in the “too independent“ CEC. It appointed two more election commissioners and gave them equal status with that of the CEC. An angry Seshan challenged the validity of the ordinance in the Supreme Court. A five-judge bench rebuffed Seshan [1995 (4) SCC 611] and upheld appo intment of the two ECs.
In the past, the SC had never commented on the process for selection and appointment of CEC and ECs. In 2006, then CEC B Tandon had written to then President A P J Abdul Kalam proposing a sevenmember collegium headed by the PM for selection of CEC and ECs. The other members in the proposed collegium were Lok Sabha Speaker, law mi nister, leaders of opposition in LS and RS, an SC judge nominated by the CJI and deputy chairman of RS.
Three years later, then CEC N Gopalaswami wrote to then President Pratibha Patil proposing a six-member collegium headed by the PM for selection of CEC and ECs. the collegium proposed by Gopalaswami excluded the SC judge. Both Tandon and Gopalaswami had said such collegiums were in action for selection of central vigilance commissioner and chairman and members of National Human Rights Commission. When Navin Chawla was set to become the CEC, BJP leaders L K Advani and Arun Jaitley had whole-heartedly supported the concept of a collegium for selection of the CEC and ECs.
Last week, the SC picked the threads from the ex-CECs' letters and asked the government, “The President appoints the CEC and ECs. The Constitution says it will be subject to any law enacted by Parliament. But till date, no law has been enacted. In such a scenario, in the absence of a law and till Parliament legislates on this issue, would it not be appropriate to institutionalise the appointment process by laying down certain norms?“ Maintaining independence of the CEC and ECs and keeping them free from political masters was the main object behind the SC's query .The NDA government opposed and said, “Rightly or wrongly , Parliament has decided not to enact a law. If Parliament says there is no need for a law, can the Supreme Court step into the legislative arena and attempt to fill the perceived gaps which do not exist? This will be improper on the part of the court.“
Given the earlier statements of Advani and Jaitley , the NDA government may not have difficulty in drafting a bill for introduction in Parliament. But the government and the SC must remember the golden words of caution uttered by K M Munshi in the Constituent Assembly on independence of the EC, which he felt would have a large army of officials given the enormity of the task entrusted to it.
“Now, all this army cannot be set up as a machinery independent of the government. It is not possible nor advisable to have a kingdom within a kingdom, so that election matters could be left to an entirely independent organ of the government. A machinery , so independent, cannot be allowed to sit as a kind of super-government to decide which government shall come to power. There will be great political danger if the Election Commission becomes such a political power in the country .“
Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs)
See graphic.
Supreme Court judgments
Apex court gave teeth to poll panel and punch to voters
Dhananjay Mahapatra
The Times of India 2013/07/15
The body constitutionally mandated to conduct free, fair polls—the Election Commission— [used to] work as an alter ego of the government. Status quo on the election front, which netas seldom contemplated changing, continued since the first elections in 1952 till 1991. Both situations – nondeclaration of assets and criminal antecedents and the EC’s role - turned on its head thanks to landmark judgments by the Supreme Court.
T N Seshan
The EC used to be pliant to commands of the government on fixing dates of election, blinking at electoral malpractices and and was also amenable to requests for postponing elections. Then, chief election commissioner T N Seshan gave details of government interference in the EC’s work in his petition to the Supreme Court in 1993. The judgment on his petition by a five-judge constitution bench in 1995 quotes Seshan’s charges against the Cngress party in detail.
S S Dhanoa vs Union of India
In the case S S Dhanoa vs Union of India [1991 (3) SCC 567], the Supreme Court said, “The Election Commission as envisaged by the Constitution is an independent institution and has to function as such. In the discharge of its duties and functions, it is not amenable to the control of any other body.”
Seshan realized the importance of the ruling and used it to convert the paper tiger in Election Commission into a roaring, biting one. Since the Dhanoa ruling, the EC has not looked back. It has discharged its duty of conducting free and fair elections.
Union of India vs Association for Democratic Reforms [2002]
But what is the use of free, fair election if voters do not have a chance to make an informed choice? That is, they were not informed about antecedents of the candidates. The court settled this issue in Union of India vs Association for Democratic Reforms [2002 (5) SCC 294] and directed every candidate to declare his educational qualification, wealth and criminal records.
The SC in the 2002 judgment said, “To maintain the purity of elections and to bring transparency in the process of election, the commission can ask the candidates about the expenditure incurred by the political parties and this transparency would include transparency of a candidate who seeks election or re-election.
“In a democracy, the electoral process has a strategic role. The little man of this country would have basic elementary right to know full particulars of a candidate who is to represent him in Parliament where laws to bind his liberty and property may be enacted.”
The 2002 judgment did not go down well with politicians, who ganged up as a class against it. Emboldened by consensus at the all-party meeting, the government first issued an ordinance and later brought in a legislation which substantially weakened the apex court ruling. The new law said only those who get elected were to declare their assets and criminal antecedents and not every candidate.
Amendment quashed by SC in 2003
This amendment was quashed by the SC in March 2003. It said the amendment restricting declaration of assets and criminal antecedents only to successful candidate breached the right to information of voters, vital for them to make informed choices.
In a democracy, the Constitution becomes the source of dynamic lawmaking for the people’s representative sitting in Parliament or Assembly. For the higher judiciary, it becomes a source for dynamic scrutiny of the enacted law and its interpretation.
2013’s judgments The Representation of the People Act applying the disqualification guillotine to elected representatives the moment they get convicted for offences and awarded more than two years imprisonment were aimed at bringing more transparency to the electoral process.
But what about speeding up appeals against conviction? Should the man who loses his seat in Parliament or assembly because of conviction wait for years to prove his innocence? Should he be disentitled to the right to speedy justice? The second judgment debarring politicians from contesting elections merely on arrest is based on the simple logic that arrested persons are disentitled to vote. But the ground situation is not simple. In the absence of reforms in policing system, the police continues to be under the thumb of the ruling party, which before the commencement of the period for filing of poll nominations could order arrest of potential rivals on frivolous charges and tinker with the electoral mandate. We will need a little more clarity on these two issues arising out of the two judgments.
See also
Chief Election Commissioners Of India
Election Commission of India
Election laws, rules. procedures: India
Elections in India: behaviour and trends (2014)
Elections in India: behaviour and trends (historical)
