|
|
|
|
|
|
Voters’ Right to Know the Background of Candidates Contesting Elections Voters' right to know about the criminal, financial, and educational background of candidates contesting elections has been firmly established by the historic judgement of the Supreme Court on March 13, 2003 (in Writ Petitions No. 490, 509, & 515 of 2002) which has made it compulsory for candidates contesting elections to Parliament and State Assemblies to submit affidavits as an essential part of their nomination paper, containing information on the following five points:
The EC has also issued another Order to the Chief Electoral Officers of all States and Union Territories, dated August 7, 2003, saying that "copies (of the affidavits) are also to be supplied freely and liberally to all other candidates, representatives to media, etc." EC’s Order of August 7, 2003 further mentions that "the District Election Officers shall furnish copies of these papers to any one on request on payment of standard copying charges". In a subsequent order of April 01, 2004, the EC has prescribed "Rs.10/- as the fees for copy of one set of nomination paper and affidavits of a candidate." The EC has further said that "this fee may be obtained in cash, for convenience, against proper reciept." EC's order of April 01, 2004 also clarifies that "copies of nomination papers, affidavits, and copies of counter affidavits etc., should be supplied on demand to any individual, political party, organisation, agencies etc. without any discrimination." Background of the Supreme Court Judgement of March 13, 2003 In December 1999, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) filed a public interest litigation in the Delhi High Court asking for disclosure of candidates' background to voters at the time of filing nomination papers. On November 2, 2000, the Delhi High Court gave its judgement (in CWP No. 7257 of 1999 - Association for Democratic Reforms Vs Union of India and another) upholding the petition. The High Court also said that the Election Commission (EC) must gather information on candidates, assess their suitability for holding public office and widely publicize it. It directed the EC to use the police, IB and other agencies of the Government to gather this information. In January 2001, the Government of India formally appealed against the judgment in the Supreme Court. Several political parties became intervenors to the case. On May 2, 2002, the Supreme Court passed a landmark and historic judgment (in Civil Appeal No. 7178 of 2001 - Union of India Vs Association for Democratic Reforms). It said "The Election Commission is directed to call for information on affidavit by issuing necessary orders in exercise of its power under Article 324 of the Constitution of India from each candidate seeking election to Parliament or State Legislature as a necessary part of his nomination paper, furnishing therein, information on the (five) aspects in relation to his/her candidature…" It is important to note that the judgment asked for disclosure of information and not for disqualification of candidates. The Court gave two months to the ECI to issue "appropriate directions" to implement the judgment. The EC wrote to the Government to amend the Conduct of Election Rules to implement the judgment. The Government responded by asking the EC to seek more time from the Court. When it became clear that the Government would not amend the rules, the EC issued directives on June 28, 2002 fully implementing the judgment. With remarkable alacrity, 21 political parties met on July 8, 2002 and unanimously "rejected" the Court orders. A draft Bill to amend the Representation of People Act was circulated within 10 days. It retained disclosure of pending criminal cases, but deleted disclosure of assets and liabilities. The Bill was not introduced in the monsoon session of 2002, perhaps due to the petrol pump scam and the subsequent stalling of Parliament. An Ordinance was drafted for the President to sign. Various citizens' groups met the President to inform him that the Ordinance seemed unconstitutional and he should consider returning it. On August 22, 2002, the President returned the Ordinance to the Cabinet. On August 23 the Cabinet met and decided to send the Ordinance as it was to the President. On August 24 the President signed the new Ordinance Three PILs were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Ordinance. In its March 13, 2003 judgement, the Supreme Court declared that "… the Amended Act is held to be illegal, null and void." It restored the earlier judgement of May 2, 2002 judgment, and also declared that the judgement "has attained finality". Voters' Right to Know In simple terms,
:: GO UP :: |
:: ARCHIVES ::
|
|
| Conceived and Created by Blackbridge Communications |