'If Supreme Court Clarifies Election Commission's Power To De-Recognise Political Parties, It Will Be Salutary Step: EC Tells SC

'If Supreme Court clarifies Election Commission's power to de-recognise political parties, it will be a salutary thing. If we do it for even one political party, it will have huge ramifications',Election Commission has submitted before the Supreme Court."Dr. B. R. Ambedkar expressed 2 regrets regarding the Constitution – one, that it could not be drafted in vernacular. And two, that there was no stipulation of qualification for the elections. In the Constituent Assembly debates, it was expected that the voters would have the wisdom to decide who is the correct person to be elected. This has not happened. The ECI wants to take this forward", Senior Advocate Vikas Singh appearing for EC told the Supreme Court on Thursday.The bench of Justices Rohinton Nariman and B. R. Gavai was considering a contempt petition filed by advocate Brajesh Singh where he claims to be aggrieved by the conduct of the respondents during the Bihar Legislative Assembly Election of 2020, alleging wilful disobedience of the Court's judgement of February 13, 2020 where the Court, while exercising its power under Article 129 read with Article 142, has directed, inter alia, that it shall be mandatory for political parties to upload on their website detailed information regarding individuals with pending criminal cases who have been selected as candidates. It was the case of the contempt-petitioner that all of the parties contesting the Bihar elections deliberately defied the orders of the Court by choosing to publish their criminal antecedents by and large in one newspaper which did not have wide circulation in the state as compared to other prominent newspapers. Further, all prominent political parties had given a common reason for selecting candidates with criminal antecedents- their being more popular than any other candidate and the greater probability of winning- which is against the Court's direction Which had specifically required the reasons to be in terms of the qualifications, achievement and merit of the candidate and not winnability at the polls. Besides, it is contended that only an incomplete description of the offences with which the candidates are charged had been given."Our experience is that everybody knows which of the candidates who are contesting have criminal antecedents. But the candidates still garner votes on the basis of caste or because of the political party etc. Something needs to be done towards the issue of criminalisation of politics in this country", he submitted.He drew the attention of the bench to the directions issued on February 13, 2020- that it shall be mandatory for political parties at the Central and state election level to upload on the website detailed information regarding individuals with pending criminal cases (including the nature of the offences and the relevant particulars such as whether charges have been framed, the concerned court, the case number etc) who have been selected as candidates, along with the reasons for such selection, as also as to why other individuals without criminal incidents could not be selected as candidates. Further, the court had required these details to be published within 48 hours of the selection of the candidate or not less than 2 weeks before the first date for filing of nomination, whichever is earlier."This order was passed on my submission. It was our hope that there should be some thought by the political parties, some debate so far as the issue of criminalisation is concerned. But all these hopes have been completely belied. Political parties are deciding the names of the candidates on the last date of nomination. This is a big malpractice in the country. The name is just logged in, there is no discussion, and then routine affidavits are filed. There has to be some sort of a churning exercise. Unfortunately, the political parties are not discussing anything. Look at any political party, be it the ruling party or the opposition, the percentage of candidates who were selected and who have criminal antecedents is the same", he submitted.Mr. Singh indicated section 81 of the Representation of People's Act, which states that an election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified by any candidate at such election or any elector. He showed that "elector" has been defined to mean a person who was entitled to vote at the election to which the election petition relates, whether he has voted at such election or not."Where in any constituency, a candidate with criminal antecedents has been selected, it will be open to an elector of that constituency or another candidate to contest this by way of an election petition where they may urge that there is a better candidate available. Then the High Court will have the jurisdiction to decide who was the better candidate. This will ensure that every candidate with criminal antecedents can face an election petition at the behest of one who says 'I am a better...

'If Supreme Court Clarifies Election Commission's Power To De-Recognise Political Parties, It Will Be Salutary Step: EC Tells SC

Mehal Jain

Tags