Narendra Modi's failure to fill in his spouse’s name in his earlier poll affidavits cannot be interpreted as a matter of insensitivity towards women. The track record of the Gujarat Government on women's issues has been excellent
Television channels and the print media have highlighted the contents of the affidavit filed by Mr Narendra Modi before the Returning Officer of Vadodara. The voter of the country is more interested in the policy of secularism, development and growth. The spectre of unemployment is looming large in the young minds today.
Our aspiration to be a key global player with a vibrant economic, foreign and security policy is what the TV viewer is seeking confirmation on. It is appreciated that the channels compete for TRP rating, but surely the viewer should be spared the acrimonious ‘Tu tu main main’ exchanges based on inadequate facts.
The Opposition has charged that Mr Modi is guilty of concealing facts in his previous affidavits filed in the elections to Gujarat Assembly since 2002 and that it should be subjected to legal scrutiny. The critics have also flagged the moral issue of insensitivity on the part of Mr Modi towards women.
The legal facts deserve elucidation for an objective appreciation. The Election Commission has powers under Article 324 of the Constitution for the “superintendence, direction and control of the elections”. In a civil appeal of 2001 — Union of India versus Association for Democratic Reforms — the Supreme Court by its order dated May 2, 2002, recognised the right to information for the voter and directed that the EC should seek details from the candidates regarding criminal antecedents, the assets of the candidate, his/her spouse and that of dependents and the educational qualification of the candidate. Accordingly, the EC prescribed an affidavit to be furnished by the candidates along with the nomination paper before the Returning Officer. The form then prescribed by the EC did not seek any information regarding the marriage or the details about the spouse.
The Union Government revised the Form 26 prescribed under Representation of the People Act/Conduct of Election Rules, which is the format of affidavit to be filed by the candidates along with nomination paper. This rule was inserted in August 2012 to the revised Form 26, and sought information regarding the name of the spouse, Permanent Account Number and status of filing of income tax. Nowhere else in the process of election till then, there is a requirement regarding the information about marriage, name of the spouse etc. Thus, the rule inserted in August 2012 to Form 26 sought information for the first time about the spouse name. Mr Narendra Modi’s affidavit before 2012 was in total compliance of the requirement as prevailed then.
The rejection of nomination paper on the grounds of furnishing wrong information or suppressing material information was settled by the EC in accordance with the apex court judgement dated March 13, 2003. It was notified by the EC that the Returning Officer would not have the powers to reject a nomination form. The broad message was that such controversies should get settled by election petition. Only in a recent judgement dated September 13, 2013, has the apex court clarified that an affidavit with blank particulars will render the affidavit nugatory. It further directed that the Returning Officer would scrutinise information given by the candidate and issue a reminder seeking information as prescribed. Non-compliance of the reminder may entail rejection of the nomination paper. Thus, the EC’s earlier blanket ban regarding rejection of nomination paper by the Returning Officer has been partly amended in pursuance of the apex court order dated September 13, 2013.
In the light of the facts highlighted, it is evidently clear that Mr Modi was not non-compliant to the EC’s order at any stage of his electoral politics. The information in the nomination form filed in Vadodara is in compliance of the RPA.
The issue of morality has been raised against Mr Modi for not providing information of his marriage at the time of Gujarat Assembly election. As stated, this information was nowhere sought by the EC in the earlier prescribed forms. Mr Modi has now mentioned in the revised Form 26 about Ms Jashodaben as his spouse. His commitment to the RSS ideology which preaches celibacy for a pracharak is not hidden. It seems that Mr Modi did not agree with his parents; more so when it was a child’s marriage. It cannot be interpreted as an issue of insensitivity towards women. The track record of the Gujarat Government speaks for itself and the progressive status of women in Gujarati society is undisputed.