Introduction:
The Indian political System is more known for its bad things than good things. The Constitution of India enshrines in its Part XV, the Free and Fair Elections. But at the same time, the elections contain hooliganism, arson, violence, threats, dacoity, theft, bribes, and name it and all. This is driven by two main factors – lust for power and lust for money. This article will attempt to look into the factors which can help in the prevention of such criminalization of politics.
The Criminalization of politics came out in front of entire India in its worst form during 1993 Mumbai Bomb Blasts. It was initially considered to be a terrorist activity but ultimately turned out to be a handiwork of a frustrated network of criminal warfare, police, customs and their political patrons. It prompted a commission to be set up to investigate into this menace. The Vohra Committee Report, submitted by Union Home Secretary, NN Vohra, in Oct 1993, felt that the Criminal Network was in fact running a parallel Government.
Otherwise also, in a report published in the Times of India in July 2009, the Criminalization of politics has become a menace more dangerous than terrorism. The proportion of hardcore criminals in Indian politics was 15% in 2009. This became 17% in the 2014 election and crossed 19% in 2019. The charges against these people were Murder, Attempt to Murder, Kidnapping, Rape and Crimes against Children.
The first instance of Booth Capturing was reported as early as 1957, barely 9 years after Independence! Do the framers of the Constitutional Laws know that right under their noses these things had started to happen? In the 1960s, the re-elections were quite frequent. Goons were almost assured of political favours for enabling the candidates to win an election. The uncertainty over the election allowed the candidates to further push illegal activities in order to secure a seat.
In 1969, Indira Gandhi banned corporate funding of elections. This was a correct move no doubt, but it further lead to illegal money pumped into the elections. With it came the trend of freebies offered in return of votes. The cost of elections increased, as a result, thus resulting in more and more black-marketers entering into the fold. Political parties increased from 55 in 1952 to 464 in 2014. These things further lured political leaders towards goons, who could provide underground financing. As a result, the parties fielded tainted candidates who would not pose any burden on their coffers.
Present Laws
Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 prescribes that each candidate has to necessarily file an affidavit regarding cases which has caused him to be accused of any offence punishable for two or more than two years in a pending case in which charges have already been framed by a court, and the cases for conviction of an offence other than any of the offences mentioned in section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951(the Act) and sentenced to imprisonment for a year or even more than that.
Apart from this, the Election Commission passed an order in 2003 under the Article 125A of the Act, which entailed strict penalties of six months imprisonment, and/or fine, for hiding of information, or leaving columns blank.
Remedies
1. Negative Voting
The public at large is normally presented with choices which are mostly criminals. That is to suffice that, in effect, there is no choice in front of the people. People are made to choose between the candidates they can’t select. There is no “None of these” choice. If there was one, the authorities would be reasonably sure of the people’s opinion, that the public has rejected all of them, and they should, in fact, go for a fresh mandate after cancelling the current elections altogether. This concept is known as “negative voting”. Moreover, the same candidates are thrust upon the people, again and again, leaving very less choices.
2. Better Management
According to ECI records, the combined voter handling in an average Indian Election on any given time is easily more than Europe, USA, Canada and Australia have taken together all at once. As soon as the elections approach, the normal race between the parties to arrange for the bogus voters starts. This attitude is fuelled by the general people themselves. That the people are unaware of the rights and responsibilities, contribute a major factor. If the people were aware, there would have been more genuine votes than non-genuine ones.
However, given the magnitude of voter turnouts, the electoral process personnel involved and the official strength, its imperative that there be a single authority to not only preside over the elections in general but also declare an election void in case it is discovered that a process of voting was indeed committed by fraudulent means or some booth capturing was done. This will ensure better management of the whole election process.
3. Electoral Disputes Management
In practice, the disputes related to election management of both the State and the Union Legislatures are adjudicated through High Courts of the state where the dispute occurred. Electoral disputes are filed under sections 80 and 80-A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. Though sections 86(6) and 86(7) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 expressly say that the electoral disputes shall necessarily be adjudicated upon within six months of its presentation before the court, this is rarely followed in practice. The courts take months and years to decide on the disputes, sometimes going beyond the full term of the houses. This renders the whole process of election dispute resolution a farcical exercise.
4. Electoral Reforms
Reforms are meant to be continuous processes. Any accomplishment of modification would depend on the compliance of operations of the electoral machinery, all political parties, their candidates, and the electorate at all various levels. The Election Commission has indeed been able to accomplish a lot of success in this area over the past few years. The changes are there for everybody to see, the crime rate in elections has decreased to a considerable level. The Election Commission has justified its stance on the elections to be conducted freely and fairly.
The Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms, 1990, stated that “The role of money and muscle powers at elections deflecting seriously the well-accepted democratic values and ethos and corrupting the process; rapid criminalization of politics greatly encouraging evils of booth capturing, rigging, violence etc.; misuse of official machinery, i.e. official media and ministerial; the increasing menace of participation of non-serious candidates; form the core of our electoral problems. Urgent corrective measures are the need of the hour lest the system itself should collapse.”
Case Law
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar V Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors.
Supreme Court of India, 14.07.2020
MANU/SC/0521/2020
Facts were that two sets of nomination papers were filed by the respondents and they had challenged the election of the original appellant. The petitions were filed under sections 80 and 81 of the representation of peoples Act, 1951. One of the petitions was filed by the defeated Congress (I) Candidate, whereas the other petition was filed by one of the electors of the constituency in which the appellant resided. There were four sets of nomination papers accepted by the returning officer of the Election Commission, which was having major defects of a substantial nature. The nomination papers had been declared void by the court already. It was further contended that since the nomination forms were presented late after the closing of the stipulated date, the papers should not have been accepted. To support their claims, the respondents were able to submit camera recordings of both inside, and outside of the office of the returning officer. However, the regional officer had refuted the claims of the respondents, stating that due diligence had been followed in submitting the nomination papers within the stipulated time. The High Court had ordered the entire record of the election to be brought before the court, including the camera recordings. The CD’s produced by the Election Commission were not accepted by the High Court and were ordered to be supported by secondary evidence. This caused the litigants to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision- The Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal, held the CD’s as the original proof of the evidence, and rejected the need to obtain secondary evidence.
Case Law
Public Interest Foundation & Ors. V Union of India & Ors.
Supreme Court of India, 25.09.2008
MANU/SC/1048/2018
Facts were that the Petitioner, an NGO, had sought to contest a case against the Election Commission of India, directing the body to stop a candidate against whom, a charge has been filed, to file a form for contesting elections. Especially so while using a symbol which is reserved.
Decision– The Supreme Court of India gave a landmark decision on the question raised by the Petitioners. Further, the court opined that “Due to criminalization of our polity, and thereafter our politics, and in order to make sure that certain persons should not be ministers, is not possible by way of any guidelines by this court. It is for the electorate to ensure, and legislature to enact” (Very correct observation. If analysed properly, the court is suggesting that laws are required to ensure that unsuited persons are not allowed to stand for elections).
Further, the court opined that “It is true that Constitution has some limitations, the appointment of a suitable person as the minister is not the one…..” there have been serious concerns, since the framers of the Constitution met, about the people who are going to govern the country. Dr Rajendra Prasad also said that “It requires men of strong character, men of vision and men who can protect the interests of the country at large……we can only hope that the country will throw up such men in abundance…..”
Conclusion
It is clear that the election process has undergone many changes since its inception. The laws have been interpreted in ways to promise the electorate of this country, the spirit of the Constitution. Gone are the days when the Election Commissioner used to be a powerless institution. The Election Commissioner is having control that the creators of the Constitution had envisaged at the time of its framing.
0 Comments