Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, May 07, 2001

Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | State Elections | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Entertainment | Miscellaneous | Features | Classifieds | Employment | Index | Home

Opinion | Previous | Next

Order or anarchy?

Sir, - Your Editorial `Legislators and Election law' (April 28) sums up the lacunae in Section 8 (4) of the Representation of the People Act and the discrimination between a sitting MLA and a non-member in regard to disqualification. Mr. Harkishan Singh Surjeet (CPM) questioned in your column on April 29 ``whether the sitting MLA is free to commit murder and other offences''. The protection given to the sitting members under Section 8 (4) would immediately cease to operate once the notification for election to the Legislative Assembly is issued by the E.C.

The solution lies before the forum of the Supreme Court (by way of PIL) or by a Presidential reference to the Supreme Court (Art. 143) on the Constitutionality and vires of Section 8 (4). Second, consider for a moment if the electorate returns Ms. Jayalalitha's party and her allies with a majority at the hustings. The allies may elect Ms. Jayalalitha as their leader and meet the Governor to invite her to form the Ministry.

For the Governor to do so might violate the oath taken by him/her to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the well- being of the people of the State. For the Governor to avoid doing so by discretion may be true to the Constitution and law, besides not being a party to an obligation cast on Ms. Jayalalitha to get her elected as a MLA within six months time which is impossible.

To understand the situation in better perspective reference may be had to the Supreme Court decision in the Association for Democratic Reforms vs Union of India (Air Delhi 2001) wherein the Law Commission, the E.C., Vohra Committee and noted jurists were all unanimous in strengthening and plugging loop holes in the disqualification law rather than loosening it.

The question before us is not one of man/women but of protecting a Constitutional institution from the onslaught of money and muscle power as observed in the above decision of the Supreme Court. If the criminalisation of politics is to be effectively prevented and purity in the system of governance is to be infused, the spirit of the Constitution should be strictly observed no matter what power or individual is disappointed.

M. Palanisami,

Chennai

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail


Section  : Opinion
Previous : Expel the guilty
Next     : In praise of diplomatic exuberance

Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | State Elections | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Entertainment | Miscellaneous | Features | Classifieds | Employment | Index | Home

Copyrights © 2001 The Hindu

Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu