Skip to main content
Source
Business World
http://www.businessworld.in/news/economy/purging-politics/1328841/page-1.html
Date

Jagdeep S. Chhokar and his team at ADR provide voters details of contesting candidates

And, murky it definitely is. In the 2009 Lok Sabha, there were 162 MPs with criminal charges against them. That’s 33 more than the 129 MPs in 2004. Of the 162, 76 were allegedly involved in cases relating to murder, attempt to murder and kidnapping. Things are no different in the state assemblies where 1,264 of the 4,032 MLAs (31 per cent) have criminal charges.

The need for information on candidates is met by Delhi-based Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), whose efforts over the years have resulted in the Election Commission (EC) making it mandatory for candidates to file affidavits detailing their assets (both moveable and immoveable), educational qualifications and criminal record over the past decade. This database, which ADR collates, provides voters a glimpse into the person they are voting to power.

ADR does not take its responsibility lightly. This summer, it has cancelled all leave for its 25-odd employees. Forget leave, they cannot even take a day’s off on Sundays till the general elections get over and the new government is formed in end-May.

The fight for cleansing the political system started in 1999. At that time, L.K. Advani (BJP) was contesting against former chief election commissioner T.N. Seshan (Congress) from Gandhinagar. Some professors from the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad — part of Gandhinagar constituency — who did not want to vote for either candidate, decided to seek information on the other six contestants. But all that was available was their names. 

Professor Trilochan Sastry, founder and trustee, ADR, discovered that anyone could be elected an MP by providing just four bits of information— name, father/husband’s name, address and voter registration number.   

In 1999, ADR filed a public interest litigation (PIL) with the Delhi High Court asking for disclosure of financial, educational  and criminal records of candidates. Based on this, in 2003, the Supreme Court made it mandatory for all candidates to disclose such information prior to the polls by filing an affidavit with the EC.

 

HOW THE COOKIE CRUMBLED
1999: A group of professors from IIMA sets up Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR)
Aug 1999: ADR files a PIL in Delhi High Court seeking disclosure of criminal, financial and educational records of candidates
2 May 2002: SC makes it mandatory for candidates to disclose such details under the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951
28 June 2002: Election commissioner J.M. Lyngdoh issues 28-page order asking candidates to provide details
8 July 2002: 22 political parties attend meeting called for amending RPA
15 July 2002: Bill amending RPA is circulated
July 2002: Bill lapses, plan floated to issue ordinance
16 Aug 2002: 30 people urge President Abdul Kalam to reject the ordinance
22 Sept 2002: Kalam returns ordinance unsigned
23 Sept 2002: Attorney general Soli Sorabjee meets President with same ordinance and gets his signature
End 2002: ADR moves SC against ordinance
13 Mar 2003: SC states that any changes to RPA are null and void. No further appeal
Nov 2003: MP, Mizoram, Rajasthan and Puducherry polls see affidavits being filed
The problem is not with the candidates per se, but the political parties that provide tickets to such people to contest elections. “Across political parties, there are 35 people who select candidates for the elections,” says Jagdeep S. Chhokar, founder member and trustee, ADR. What that means is that the average Indian citizen ends up voting for pre-selected candidates over whose selection he has no say. 

Keeping ADR company is Transparency International India (TII). According to its Corruption Perception Index 2013, India is ranked 94 among 177 countries. Says S.K. Agarwal, chairman, TII: “If we do a police verification for a government job, why can’t we have police verification for all people contesting elections.”

The other contentious issue relates to the spending in an election. For the current Lok Sabha poll, a contestant has a limit of Rs 70 lakh as far as poll expenses are concerned. The actual spend is never monitored though.

ADR managed to check with 6,753 of the 7,500-odd contestants of the 2009 elections. Chhokar points out that only four contestants admitted to spending in excess of the limit while 30 others admitted to spending 90 per cent of the then limit of Rs 40 lakh. The balance 6,719 candidates (99 per cent) admitted to spending between 45-55 per cent of the limit.

Yet, there is a clamour for increasing the limit after every election. In 2013, BJP’s Gopinath Munde stated that he spent Rs 8 crore in the 2009 election. Later, in front of the EC, he claimed that the remark was mere rhetoric.

While there have been achievements, a lot more needs to be done. For starters, there is no financial transparency in political parties. Chhokar says ADR is fighting to get details of the income tax returns of politicians.  

- See more at: http://www.businessworld.in/news/economy/purging-politics/1328841/page-…