The President Takes Over

by Bhaskar Sarkar

New Rules for Elections

  On the third day the President declared a program of elections. These were to be completed within 150 days of the imposition of Emergency. He outlined that the notification was to be issued within 30 days. There after nomination papers were to be filed within 15 days. Objections to nominations were to be filed within 30 days there after. The objections were to be verified and nomination papers scrutinized within the next 30 days. Withdrawal of nominations was to be allowed for 15 days. The elections including declarations of results were to be completed within the next thirty days. The elections in the states under Presidents Rule or where they were due in normal course would be held along with those for Lok Sabha.

  The President also issued an Ordinance laying down new rules for holding of elections. The salient points of the ordinance are given below.

  Eligibility

  Only citizens of India above the age of 25 and below the age of 75 would be eligible to contest elections.

  The minimum educational qualifications for the candidates will be a graduate in any discipline. The educational certificates including the matriculation certificates are to be verified.

  Disqualifications

  Any person who has been convicted for an offense under IPC will not be eligible to contest election.

  Any person in illegal or unauthorized occupation of government accommodation will not be eligible to contest elections.

  Any person who has been convicted in a case of civil offense involving moral turpitude will not be eligible to contest elections.

  Any person against whom a charge sheet has been filed for any criminal or economic offense or against whom an FIR has been filed and the case is under investigation will not be eligible to contest elections.

  Any person who has more than two children will not be eligible to contest elections.

  Any person who has more than one wife or husband will not be eligible to contest elections.

  Any person who is liable to pay income tax but has not filed his return will not be eligible to contest elections.

  Any person who has not cleared their old dues to the Government departments like telephone bills, house rent or payment for transport, rest house charges or charges for any other facility provided by any Government agency, will not be eligible to contest elections.

  Disqualification of Parties

  Regional parties will not be allowed to contest in Lok Sabha Elections. A regional party is defined as a party which has not won seats in the elections to assemblies of at least three states.

  Any party which fails to get 5 per cent of the votes cast in an election will be disqualified and those elected on the ticket of these parties would also be disqualified.

  However, any citizen of India, who is otherwise eligible to contest elections, will be allowed to contest as an independent candidate.

  Any party which fails to nominate women to 30 percent of the seats contested by the party will be disqualified. However, no seats will be specifically reserved for women.

  Any party which fails to close their accounts and submit the audit report to the Election Commission within 180 days of the closing of the financial year will be de-recognized and debarred from taking part in any election till the accounts have been submitted and verified.

  Objections and Their Disposals

  The list of persons who have filed their nomination papers will be published by the election commission within three days of the last date for filing nomination papers in the national dailies. Any person or organization will be entitled to file objection to the candidature of any candidate on the grounds of eligibility or disqualifications as mentioned in the Ordinance within 30 days of the last date for the filing of nominations. These will be in the form of a sworn affidavit giving the full details of ineligibility or disqualification and be addressed to the Election Commission. The scrutiny of the nominations and disposal of the objections will be processed within 60 days of the last date of filing of nominations. If any of the objections are found to be untrue, the person filing the objection will undergo a term of imprisonment of one year. In case of organizations, the person signing the affidavit will be liable. If the allegations are found to be true, the candidate will be disqualified from standing in any election for five years and also undergo imprisonment for one year.

  Disqualification after Elections

  Any candidate who contests an election and seeks votes either on basis of religion or caste, even if elected will be disqualified if found guilty of such misconduct by a court of law.

  Any candidate who or whose agents or supporters use intimidatory tactics on voters, attempt to capture booths or in any other way interfere with the process of election, will be disqualified if found guilty of such misconduct by a court of law.

  Any candidate who fails to declare his assets and those of his spouse, parents and children as per the form for government officers will not be sworn in as an elected member. If the candidate fails to declare his assets and those of his family members within 90 days of the swearing in of the other members he will be disqualified. The candidate will also be disqualified if his declaration is proved to be incorrect at any stage.

  Any candidate, who after being elected, is charge sheeted for any offense under the IPC, or found to be interfering in the investigation of any offense alleged to be committed by himself or any other person by way of trying to influence the police or any other investigating agency, recommending or getting transferred persons connected with such investigation, would be suspended from the membership of the parliament or legislative assembly. He will have no voting rights while in suspension. The elected person will be permanently disqualified if found guilty of misconduct in a court of law.

  Any candidate, unless he is an independent, will be disqualified if he leaves his party and joins or forms another political party.

  Any candidate, who after elections, is found guilty of unbecoming conduct like failure to uphold the decorum of the house, using unbecoming language in the house, damaging any furniture or equipment in the house or using physical force on a fellow legislator or any other person in the house or not listening to instructions from the Speaker’s chair will be immediately suspended for the duration of the session. If the elected candidate is found guilty of a similar offense a second time, he will be permanently disqualified.

  The new election laws created quite a stir. A lot of politicians were extremely unhappy with it. The reaction in the media was mixed. Some welcomed the provisions. Others were critical. The President called a press conference to clarify the issues.

  One of the media persons asked why he had committed the nation to an expenditure of over Rs 1200 Crores for conduct of elections. Could the country afford such wasteful expenditure? The President replied that he did not think that election expenditure was wasteful. Any expenditure in purchase of goods and services was justified as it helped the money to circulate and thereby increased GDP and provided income. Purchase of flowers, paintings, pieces of handicraft could all be termed as wasteful expenditure. But in actual fact they were not. They not only generated income and provided employment but also helped preserve the rich heritage of the country. Apart from the traveling and other allowances for the Government staff engaged in the conduct of election, the entire money spent during elections was for purchase of goods and services. It provides employment to a lot of unemployed youth who shout slogans and help in the campaigning. It generates income to printing presses and a host of other services. Such expenditure certainly could not be termed wasteful. Money which is hoarded in cash and expenditure on foreign items of consumption like liquor, cosmetics, and cigarettes were wasteful expenditure because it did not result in the money being circulated or employment being generated within the country. But no media person has ever written a column decrying such wasteful expenditure.

  When asked why he had not reserved seats for women but only the number of tickets, the president clarified that it was important that the women got a chance to
prove themselves. But it would not be correct to have women given seats without their proving their worth. It would not be fair to the electorate to be forced to accept a woman as their leader. It would also resolve the problem of selecting which seats should be reserved for the women. It would also give a chance to the women to win more than 30 percent seats in the Parliament or the legislative assembly. It was not in the best interest of the country to have incompetent persons elected simply because they were women. It was for the same reason that he had laid down that the minimum educational qualification was graduation in any subject.

  When asked if the condition that the candidate should not have more than one wife was fair on Muslims, the President replied that a political leader must be a role model worth emulating. Plural marriages though permitted in Muslim Law are not desirable. It is frowned upon in many of the Muslim countries and among Ismailis. In any case plural marriages are not banned. Only persons with more than one wife or husband could not be a candidate for an election. They only have to make a choice between a career in politics and having more than one wife. Even the King of England had to make a choice between the eligibility to the throne and marrying a divorcee. In any case there is no bar on their working on the organizational side of the party.

  Some journalists objected to the restriction on the number of children. Since many of the politicians were of the older generation, this restriction was not fair on them. The President explained that it was vital for the Nation that small family norms were adopted. And it was vital that the people should get the message that persons who had large families were a burden on the society. They were anti nationals and hence could not be expected to keep the interest of the nation in mind. As in the case of more than one marriage, it was a matter of setting good examples. A leader must set an example for the others to follow. In any case he did not think that there any politician who was indispensable to the well-being of the Nation. The restriction only applied to standing for elections. Such leaders could, if they were so inclined, hold party posts and work for their parties.

  When asked whether ineligibility of the regional parties to contest the elections to the Parliament would not lead to a breakup of the Union, the President replied that he did not think so. He expected the measure to strengthen the Union. The regional parties had regional interests which did not always coincided with the country as a whole. When regional parties have a say in the government, they tend to promote the interest of their states at the cost of others. Just look at the river water disputes between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka or between Punjab and Haryana. These disputes can never be fairly settled if the Union Government is not able to implement any decisions which are not agreed to by one of the parties. The states need to realize that they depend on each other for essential resources. For example, Punjab or Rajasthan does not have any coal. If coal is denied to them their life would be very difficult. There are many examples of such scarce resources and facilities which have to be shared for common good. This is true not only between states but also between nations. The President firmly believed that regional parties were a threat to national unity. Therefore, their roles should be restricted to the states.

  The Press also asked the President whether the rule that a party would have to obtain 5 per cent of the votes cast in an election not to be disqualified was justified. The President felt that the tendency to have unlimited number of parties needed to be curbed. This was not good for the stability of the Government and good governance. When no party had a clear majority, these nonentities tended to become very powerful because they had the power to make or break governments. This is not good for the country. The tail should never have the ability to shake the head. The country should be ruled by one party or a viable coalition. It is therefore absolutely necessary to eliminate the small parties. The President expected the move to polarize the different parties on ideological grounds before the elections. It would also make the parties ideology based rather than personality based. It is ridiculous that every time there is a disagreement in the party on any issues, the aggrieved elements quits the party and forms another. This could in time lead to formation of thousands of parties. Ballot papers would have to be replaced by ballot books. In democracy, the decision supported by the majority must prevail and the minority must learn to abide by the decision of the majority unless they were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Unless this is understood, democracy cannot function

  The President was asked that if that was the case, why he did not ban the independents from being candidates for elections. The President said that he had thought long and hard on the matter. But he had allowed the independents to contest elections for two reasons. Firstly it would not be good to disallow a large section of the population from contesting elections. Secondly, the independents that have helped in formation of the Governments of different states have behaved quite maturely and not in a fickle minded way. It also enables candidates who are acceptable to the people but are not given tickets by a party because of partisan, personal or unethical reasons to contest and win. It is most important for the country that the best available candidates get elected as the representatives of the people.

  The President was asked why he had banned defections on any ground what so ever. He replied that a candidate got elected by the supporters of a particular political party. If the elected person defected to another political party after the election, it amounted to betrayal of the people who elected him. This is against the fundamental concept of democracy. The present laws regarding defection which originated during the Congress monopoly on political power are manipulative. The Congress made the one third rule so that engineering defections became more costly than engineering defection of individuals. But they did not ban it all together because it wanted to retain the ability to engineer defections to perpetuate its rule and believed that it had more money power than the other political parties and could afford to engineer bulk defections.

  The President was asked why he had not suggested any reservations on the basis of religion or cast. The President replied that he did not believe that reservations were either conducive or necessary for the development of religious minorities or the backward classes. Mr. K.R. Narayanan or Mr. APJ Abdul Kalam did not become president just because they were from a backward caste, or economic background. Neither did Dr B. R. Ambedkar become one of the authors of our Constitution simply because he was from the backward classes. It was because of the education they received, because they were very capable men, because they were men of vision who could be trusted with important assignments. Education was the key to development. Without education no one can develop. Minorities and backward classes need education. He was considering a system of scholarship together with reservations in educational institutions to help minorities and backward classes to develop.

  The President then asked the correspondents, “When you fall ill, do you go to a doctor after ascertaining his cast or religion? Or do you go to him because he is good and you have confidence in him. When we select a cricket team to represent the country, do you have reservations based on religion or caste? You are even against quotas in the national teams on regional basis. You want the best players who can help the team to win. You want players who can perform. Yet when it comes to selecting our leaders who are going to govern the nation and your destiny, you talk of reservations. Do you think that the selection of a cricket or hockey team is more important than the selection of the leaders that govern the country? If you have leaders without vision, without integrity, without administrative ability how do you expect the country to develop? If you have narrow minded manipulators who depend on cheap popularity gained by emptying the coffers of the country to support populist schemes, who would rather give doles out of money which is not his own but yours but who do not give a damn for development, how do you think this country will develop? If you have leaders who will bribe fellow legislators for their votes, how will you ensure that he does not accept bribes to compro
mise the interest of the nation? I have never understood you media men. You would write article after article asking for the head of a sportsman who fails to perform or the head of a cricket team that fails to win. How many articles have you written on the lack of development in Bihar or West Bengal during the rule of their longest serving chief ministers?

  The country needs educated honorable men with good administrative skills and not dishonorable manipulators to be our leaders to give us good government and development. The new election laws are my humble attempt to ensure that the leaders who are elected to the Parliament are learned, honorable men who do not depend on money or muscle power or caste or religion to get elected. I need your support in my endeavor.

  The President was asked if members were disqualified for creating commotion in the house or for disrupting its business, how could the opposition stop the ruling party from passing laws or taking measures which they feel are not correct. The President replied that in democracy, the decision of the majority must prevail. The ruling party has full authority to pass laws or take executive action which does not violate the tenants of our Constitution. The opposition can only highlight and debate their objections. They can also file a case before the Supreme Court if they consider a law passed by the ruling party is unconstitutional. But they have no right to disrupt the functioning of the house or to paralyze the Government. They must wait for the next election and if they win, they can repeal any of the acts.

  The President also reminded the members of the media that the current rules for the election would only apply for the coming elections unless the newly elected Parliament felt that there was merit in the new rules and enacted a suitable law to replace the Ordinance within six months. Five years is a very short time in the history of a nation. The experimental laws certainly deserved a chance.

  The conference was thereafter declared closed.

  Back to Contents