The unanimous decision of all political parties to exclude themselves from the ambit of the RTI Act, through an amendment, clearly indicates that the campaign to free the electoral process from opacity is a long-drawn one
The recent Supreme Court order striking down the legal provision that protects a lawmaker from disqualification after conviction in a criminal case, and the pronouncement of the Central Information Commission that political parties are answerable under the Right to Information Act, have been welcomed by civil society organisations and the common people.
The apex court in a path-breaking judgement on July 10, struck down Section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, which says a sitting Member of Parliament or Member of legislative Assembly “shall not” be disqualified till the appellate court decides on his appeal against his conviction filed within three months. The Bench also recognised the powers of the appellate courts to stay the convictions under Section 389(1) of the CrPC.
The historic role of liberating Indian legislative bodies from the ‘criminal element’ is a commendable contribution of the Supreme Court. Although, the judgement has been caught in the subjective reading on decriminalisation of politics, it has only affirmed that Parliament has no power to enact sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the RPA, 1951. The apex court’s ruling on Section 8(4) of the RPA, 1951 restores the intent of Section 8(3) of RPA, 1951, which disqualifies a person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years, from contesting elections and the disqualification is for a period of six years.
The Election Commission, on its website, clearly states that a person convicted of any offence and sentenced to a two-year imprisonment or more shall be ineligible to contest elections according to Section 8(3) of the RPA, 1951.
Even if a person is on bail after the conviction and his/her appeal is pending for disposal, he/she is disqualified from contesting an election as per the guidelines issued by the EC.
On June 2, the CIC in a decision held that the Congress, Bharatiya Janata Party, CPI(M), CPM, Nationalist Congress Party and Bahujan Samaj Party are public authorities under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The CIC also directed the parties to comply with the provisions of mandatory proactive disclosures clauses under the RTI Act and put those details on their websites.
These orders send out a strong message that the judicial and quasi-judicial authorities favour transparency, accountability in the functioning of political parties and are keen to cleanse the political environment of criminal element and the influence of black money.
But, the unanimous decision of all political parties to exclude themselves from the ambit of the RTI Act, through an amendment, clearly indicates that the campaign to free the electoral process and expect a mature response from political parties is not over yet. The parties feign ignorance of the public outcry against the lack of ethics and probity in democratic institutions as ‘violative’ of Parliament’s primacy. Parliament is neither a sovereign unto itself nor a hegemonic dominion, but one of the pillars of India’s democratic foundation as deemed by the Constitution.
Data culled from the affidavits of the contesting candidates reveals that a significant number carry the baggage of criminal charges of serious and heinous offences. The recent apex court judgement regarding Section 8(4) of RP Act, 1951 only relates to disqualification after conviction. The stage of conviction in a majority of the cases is not reached because of the heavy pendency at the court level and deliberate efforts of the accused to delay the judicial process. Therefore, any attempt by the Government to introduce legislative measures to counter the judgement should be in sync with the amendment proposed by the Justice Verma Committee Report on Amendments to Criminal law, 2013 to Section 8(1)(a) of the RP Act, 1951 with the inclusion of offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC),1860.
This proposal needs to be urgently adopted for defining serious offences where the term of punishment amounts to an imprisonment of five years or more, resulting in disqualification of candidates on charges being framed by the court.
The establishment of special fast-track courts for time-bound disposal of cases of candidates charged with serious and heinous offences would minimise the manipulations of party in power or failure of the system. It would also act as a deterrent to those with cases of criminal offences pending against them in the court from contesting elections, in order to avoid a speedy and time-bound adjudication of the case. The fast-track courts could also take up the cases of elected representatives to minimise political uncertainty in Parliament/State Assemblies.
In our democracy, there are various ventilating points to sustain the resilient character of the masses, unlike many other countries which are facing violent agitations against corruption and misgovernance. The Union Government and major political parties should post a very mature and balanced response to the rulings.
(The writer is former Chairman, TRAI, and presently, Director, Public Interest Foundation. This article is co-authored by Annapoorna Karthika, a Research Associate at Public Interest Foundation)