The country's political class is in a quandary. It has been bombarded with three back to back court verdicts which it can neither digest nor throw up. That explains why politicians that have cared to participate in television debates or offer comments to the print media on the matter have tied themselves up in knots trying to both welcome the rulings and trash them as ‘impractical' to implement.
Perhaps they would have sounded credible had they gamely acknowledged they are primarily responsible for the troubles which have befallen them. They have failed to cleanse the system through electoral reforms, and have sat on many reminders that the courts, the law Commission and the Election Commission of India served them.
Our hard-boiled politicians are behaving like naughty children caught in the act. They are all obedient in front of the teacher, but behind the back they are set to return to their old ways. There is already talk of the political class (the Government being right in the front) seeking a ‘clarification' or even a ‘review' of the court verdicts that have smashed the politicians’ plans to retain their seats in Assemblies and Parliament even if they stand convicted for crimes; contest elections even when jailed; and blatantly indulge in caste politics even when they claim to represent equally all sections of society. Worst comes to worst, the politicians will amend the laws to help them perpetuate the farce in the name of democracy. They possess that Brahmaastra.
Whatever our elected representatives do, they stand discredited before the people, and the more they try to wriggle out of the situation through devious methods the more their credibility will dip. Whether that will necessarily motivate the voters to weed out the unwanted elements, we cannot be be sure. Elections are not always won or lost on the basis of the candidate's personal credentials. Politicians often employ the very qualities that society in general frowns upon and the courts have ruled against, to fetch votes. Thus, a candidate with deep criminal credentials is a bahubali no voter will like to rub the wrong way. A candidate who commands the blind loyalty of a particular caste will be handled with care by detractors who would not wish to be seen as opponents of that caste. There have been exceptions where muscle-power has failed to work or caste calculations have gone wrong. But exceptions don't make the rule.
The three verdicts — two of the Supreme Court and one by the Allahabad High Court — must be taken together to understand the enormous shine they can bring about in our political system if only they are implemented in letter and spirit. The apex court ruled that elected representatives who are convicted by a court and whose convictions have not been set aside by an appellate court will straightaway lose their membership to the Assembly or Parliament. In doing so, the court struck down Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which offered an escape route to the convicts by providing that they will not stand disqualified till their petitions challenging the conviction are under consideration by a higher court. Due to Section 8(4), we have had criminals presiding over us as lawmakers.
The first argument against the ruling is that it is unfair to hastily disqualify elected representatives who could be eventually absolved of the criminal charges by an appellate court. The second argument is that since the judicial process moves at a snail's pace, the disqualified politician would remain in the dock until such indeterminate time that his petition is favourably decided upon — which could be years or decades. The third argument is that there will be so many disqualifications if the judgement is allowed to stand, that the country will routinely plunge into political instability.
The three submissions miss the essential point: That, a person once convicted, remains a convict until the ruling is set aside. How can then, regardless of anything else, a convict occupy the hallowed position in Parliament and AssembliesIJ The point about delay in judicial verdicts is a valid one, but it is something that every citizen who has had to approach the courts, has suffered. An ordinary citizen who has been convicted of a crime will not secure employment or be taken back into service until he is cleared of the charges. Government servants are suspended on the basis of charge-sheets that the police prepare, if not earlier at the FIR stage itself. They too have to cool their heels until their petitions claiming innocence are disposed of in their favour. Why then should the elected representatives be treated differentlyIJ And, if the political class is indeed concerned by the instability that may be caused by repeated disqualifications, it needs to take just one remedial step to pre-empt the menace: Stop giving tickets to people who face criminal charges and who could end up being convicted. Heavens will not fall if such elements are weeded out early on. Of course, perfectly clean candidates may, after being elected, invite criminal action. They can wait for the law to decide; they are not going to be disqualified until then. In any case, political instability cannot be a ruse to prevent electoral reforms.
The second ruling of the apex court which came barely hours after the first, from which the political class was still running for cover, turned the screws further. The court said that persons in jail and in police custody could not contest elections. That rubbed salt into the wounds of the politicians, and they are enraged, despite the clarity that those out on bail can fight polls. Various legal luminaries are divided on the soundness of this directive, but the people will have no complaints. They understand logic that the politicians don't wish to acknowledge: If a person is disqualified from voting under Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to the extent that he (or she) cannot even vote for himself (or herself), how can that person have the right to contestIJ Surely, there must be some limit to even farce in the name of democracy.
Finally, we have the Allahabad High Court's ruling which bans political parties from organising caste-based rallies. Every party blatantly indulges in caste-based politics. Yet, all of them have welcomed the verdict, claiming with a straight face that they do not support casteism. Behind the brave façade is resentment: How dare the court deny us our right to promote vote-bank politicsIJ Some ‘independent' observers, have slammed the verdict because it does not ‘understand social realities'. That caste exists. It is apparently enough ground for politicians to exploit the divide and cause more fractions in society to further their political interests. Should they not be bridging the gap by at least not playing up caste-identities, which caste-based rallies are meant to promoteIJ But then, can the Bahujan Samaj Party exist without Dalit politicsIJ Can the Samajwadi Party or the Rashtriya Janata Dal survive without the Yadav vote-bankIJ