|
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 |
|