Opinion - Editorials

The voter's right to know

BY DIRECTING THE Election Commission (E.C.) to do the needful to obtain such information (from the candidates themselves at the time of filing nomination) as to whether they face criminal charges is indeed a small step that could help in cleansing the political stable. While the E.C. Commission's measure now in vogue — seeking an affidavit from candidates giving information of any conviction in a criminal case — had its minimal effect, the apex court's direction now could, without doubt, enhance the scope of the campaign against criminalisation of the political discourse. Apart from an interpretation that widens the scope of the E.C.'s powers under Article 324 of the Constitution, the Court has also expanded the scope of Article 19 by placing the onus of letting the people know about the antecedents of their prospective representatives on the Commission. The verdict, in this sense, has not only added a new aspect to freedom of speech and expression (under Article 19) but has also bound the E.C. to the duty of ensuring that the voters are informed of the possibilities of a candidate being sent up to trial and even prosecution.

The E.C.'s task is now no longer restricted to obtaining an affidavit from the candidate. The law on this is clear and the nomination is rejected right then in case of a conviction involving imprisonment for two years or more. There was, however, nothing that the E.C. could do where the case had not reached the conviction stage. The Court's direction assumes significance in this context. While there is no provision in the law that accords powers to the E.C. to reject a nomination where the case against the candidate has not reached the conviction stage, the Court verdict will indeed render necessary for the Commission to publicise among the voters details of the charges faced by the candidate. This is the implication of the Court's verdict, particularly where it involves the scope of Article 19 (1); it is now a part of freedom of speech and expression and part of the fundamental rights of the citizen to know the antecedents of the candidates at the time of election. It is now possible for the Commission to publish details of charges against candidates and inform the voters of the possibility of their representative getting disqualified in the event of a conviction after he is elected. Such a measure by the E. C. will no longer be seen as an infringement of the rights of the candidates. It remains to be seen as to how the E.C. will go about giving effect to this order and exercise its powers under Article 324.

The Court has also specified that the E.C. has the powers to set the rules in this area rather than depend on Parliament to legislate. The Union Government's step, in this regard, to challenge the Delhi High Court verdict empowering the E.C. to pass the necessary orders to obtain affidavits from the candidates was indeed strange. There was nothing that prevented Parliament, even otherwise, from amending the Representation of the People Act for this. The Supreme Court's verdict in this case is one more instance where the scope of the E.C.'s powers have been widened only because Parliament failed to do the needful. Be that as it may, the verdict and its fallout are only a small step in the task of cleansing the electoral process of criminal elements. Persons with criminal records manage to get elected not because the voters are unaware of their antecedents. They achieve their ends because they manage to terrorise the voters in many instances or appeal to them on narrow sectarian or populist grounds. This being the reality, the task of cleaning the political stable of criminal elements will be possible only when civil society wakes up to the challenge. The Court's directive can, however, aid such efforts.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• A balancing act
• The voter's right to know
• A different summit
• Food security
• Communal raj and criminal society
• Use of Article 355
• 'Fatwa' politics is not the answer
• Tough, persistent
• Questions for home
• Parade them
• Not BJP alone
• Hidden agenda
• Self-defeating
• Contradictions

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu