After stating on affidavit that it supported the demand to impose life ban on convicted lawmakers, the Election Commission did a flip-flop on Wednesday by suggesting to the Supreme Court that it was not the authority concerned to comment on the issue.
Taken aback by the poll panel's stance on the crucial issue, the apex court told the Commission that it cannot afford to remain silent and sought its view by Tuesday. The Court was hearing a PIl filed by a lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.
The Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha said, "Here is a citizen of India who has approached Court with a specific prayer to debar convicted lawmakers for life. You are the Election Commission of India. You must say either 'yes' or 'no' on whether you are supporting the petitioner. But can you say I will be silentIJ No you cannot."
The Court drew the Commission's attention to the affidavit filed by EC in response to the PIl where it stated, "The answering respondent (EC) supports the cause espoused by the petitioner." The counsel for EC pointed out that the Commission is not the authority concerned to take a stand on this issue.
The Bench asked EC, "If you feel constrained by the legislature, then let us know. If you are even constrained to the extent of giving your view, feel free and say so clearly." But the judges felt that it was for the Commission to take a stand one way or the other since it is a powerful, independent authority.
Referring to the affidavit of EC, the bench said, "Paragraph eight of your counter-affidavit is very clear that you are supporting the petition. If you say we should read between the lines, we do not think why we should find out any other meaning of what is there in this paragraph." Reiterating that a stand must be taken on the issue, the bench added, "Silence is not an option as you cannot afford to remain silent."
EC counsel sought time to file an additional affidavit. He was permitted time to do so before the next date of hearing fixed for Tuesday.
Upadhyay in his petition canvassed the point that for lawmakers who adorn the high office of the legislature, there is a bar on contesting elections for a term of six years if convicted for an offence punishable with two or more years of sentence. This is not the case with the executive or judiciary where a bureaucrat or judge, convicted of a similar offence, gets debarred for life.
The Centre, in its affidavit, said the prayer sought by the petitioner seeking life-time bar on convicted lawmakers was not maintainable and the plea should be dismissed. It was for this reason the Court sought the view of EC.