The Hindu : Citizen's `right to know' reaffirmed

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Mar 15, 2003

National

National

Citizen's `right to know' reaffirmed

By K.K. Katyal

NEW DELHI MARCH 14. The Supreme Court, it is certain, will earn the gratitude of the people, of the voters — the ultimate sovereign — for re-confirming their fundamental right to know the antecedents of the candidates, their possible criminal past, assets and educational qualifications, before the elections.

The Government had abridged this right by amending the election law, with the support of all parties, nullifying an earlier order of the apex court. That abridgment has been set aside now.

The debate on this all-important issue was polarised between the political establishment, in its entirety, on the one hand, and the judiciary, the Election Commission and the electorate, on the other. The Government, along with the political establishment, may find it hard to reconcile itself to the latest verdict of the Supreme Court. This was evident from its decision to call another all-party meeting to consider the new situation. They would do well to recognise the impropriety, if not the futility, of persisting with a course of action that was not approved either by the people or by the high constitutional organs.

There was some confusion about the Congress stand. The all-party decision on July 8 last was unanimous in rejecting the Election Commission's directive, based on the Supreme Court judgment, requiring the candidates to furnish details of criminal antecedents, if any, and assets, along with their nomination forms. The claim on unanimity was not questioned by the Congress. At that stage, it wanted the election process to be simplified and the issues such as criminalisation of politics to be addressed through separate legislation. Later, however, the party veered round to a categorical view — against diluting the order of the Election Commission. That position was confirmed now, with the Congress spokesman, Jaipal Reddy, expressing satisfaction that their stand had been vindicated by the latest judgment of the Supreme Court.

The issue involved is simple, revolving as it does on the qualitatively different positions of the Election Commission (based on the Supreme Court order) and the Government — pre-election disclosure of antecedents and assets as against post-poll declarations by the elected candidates. Last year's all-party meeting disfavoured the first course, supporting the second one. The amendment, adopted by Parliament later, with remarkable promptitude, incorporated the all-party stand. As against these two steps backward, the all-party conclave took half a step forward — by proposing a bar on contesting elections by persons against whom charges have been framed by courts in two separate cases of heinous crime as against the provision in the Election Commission order, barring those with two years' conviction in a criminal case.

The judicial utterances at the preceding stages were highly significant. For instance, the Delhi High Court, in November 2000, held that "for making a right choice by election in regard to candidates at the election, it was essential that the past of the candidate should not be kept in the dark as it was not in the interest of democracy and well-being of the country".

The Supreme Court, in May 2002, dealt with a contention "that elections in the country are fought with the help of money power, which is gathered from black sources and, once elected to power, it becomes easy to collect tons of black money, which is used for retaining power and for re-election". At another stage, it said: "The little man of this country would have basic elementary right to know full particulars of a candidate who is to represent him in Parliament where laws to bind his liberty and property may be enacted".

Or "the Voter's (little man-citizen's) right to know antecedents, including the criminal past of the candidate is much more fundamental and basic for survival of democracy. The little man may think over before making his choice of electing law-breakers as law makers".

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National