Apex court’s call on BCCI, ‘secular’ elections
There is no doubting the noble intent behind the Supreme Court's two rulings: One to disqualify candidates who use religion, caste or race in elections; and the other to revamp the functioning of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). It is common knowledge that candidates contesting elections often use the parochial identity card to promote their brand of politics, and this is divisive. Similarly, despite the success it has had in promoting cricket in the country, the BCCI has got for itself the image of an opaque organisation that is unwilling to mend where it has gone wrong. The problems with the rulings lie elsewhere. In the electoral case, the twin issue is one of implementation and failure to factor in the ground reality. There are several recognised and registered parties that have been founded on the rock of caste, religion or community.
They see their role as legitimate representatives of their respective constituents. They argue that so long as they do not incite hatred or violence, they cannot be held guilty merely because they espouse the cause of a particular religion or caste or community. In any case, Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act provides for the disqualification of a candidate if the candidate, his/her agent or anyone else appeals to voters on behalf of the candidate, along caste or religious lines. How are the courts or the Election Commission of India going to determine if a parochial appeal made by an agent or anyone else, had the candidate's blessingIJ Either there would be a clean denial of the charge or a framing of the candidate. Moreover, these issues take long to decide, and the candidate, whether a victor or the loser, will continue to run from pillar to post in the legal process. If the apex court's order is taken in both letter and spirit, it would also mean that parties should not convene caste-specific or community-specific conventions and meetings or even conduct private outreaches to targeted sections of the society. Would all this not amount to curbs on certain fundamental freedomsIJ The ‘secular' character of elections would be better protected if the law enforcement machinery and the judicial process are prompt in punishing those who divide people on communal or caste card during the electoral exercise.
In the BCCI's case, the “cease and desist” order that the Supreme Court passed against Board president Anurag Thakur does appear harsh, and even leads to suspicion that the court has over-reached itself. While the apex court's desire to clean the muck in cricket cannot be disputed, there were better ways to do it than to show the door to a president who had been duly elected by the Board in a fair, transparent and democratic process, and humiliate him by stating that he was “unfit to head” the BCCI. It seems that the court is not done yet; it could initiate contempt proceedings against Thakur if he does not apologise — and even put him behind bars, as the Bench hearing the case had earlier threatened. It is unfortunate that the court should have decided to treat senior officials of the country's most successful sports body like ordinary criminals. And, by the way, does the Supreme Court really believe it has the expertise to select the best administrators of the gameIJ