New Delhi: The Supreme Court pulled up the Election Commission (EC) for its flip flop on a plea seeking barring of convicted politicians for life. The commission had initially supported such a ban, but EC’s counsel on Wednesday said such a proposal fell within the domain of the Legislature.
A bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha was hearing a PIL, filed by advocate and BJP spokesperson Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, for a direction to the Centre and the EC to take necessary steps to debar persons convicted in criminal cases from contesting elections and forming a political party.
Mr Upadhyay referred to the counter affidavit filed by the EC supporting such a lifetime ban. He said the Centre was opposed to the proposal as only the government could bring about any change in the Representation of the People Act on disqualification.
The bench came down heavily on the poll panel and also asked whether it was “constrained” to give its views in the matter.
Justice Gogoi told the counsel, “If we have to read between the lines, your counter affidavit unambiguously supported life time ban. You must say either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on whether you are supporting the petitioner. Can you afford to remain silent when it is within the domain of the commission? If you don’t want to be independent and constrained by the legislature, please say so freely.”
However, counsel for the commission said it supported the petitioner to the extent that there should be de-criminalisation of politics and a mechanism should be put in place. When Justice Gogoi pointed out that the commission in its affidavit had clearly supported the petitioner’s stand for a lifetime ban, counsel said commission had not taken any stand as it fell within the domain of the legislature.
The counsel submitted that one of the paragraphs of the ECI’s counter affidavit said the poll panel supports the cause and it should not be “read in isolation”.
“Paragraph eight of your counter-affidavit is very clear that you are supporting it. You are saying we have to read between the lines which we think we should not. We do not think why we should find out any other meaning of what is there in this paragraph,” the bench said and fixed the matter for further hearing on July 19.
It also asked the ECI about what it had communicated to the Centre on the issue. When the ECI’s counsel said it has not said anything about it in the communication addressed to the Centre, the bench said “you cannot be silent”.
However, the counsel said the ECI was not the “correct authority to comment on it” and they would file an additional affidavit in the apex court on the matter.
The petitioner said in the Executive and Judiciary, when a person is convicted for any criminal offence, he/she is suspended automatically and debarred from his services for life. However, this rule is applied differently in case of convicted person in a legislature.
He said even after conviction and undergoing sentence, a convicted person could form his own political party and eligible to become the office-bearer of any political party. In addition, a convicted person is eligible to contest the election and eligible to become Member of Legislature and even Minister after expiry of six years period from the date of conviction.
The petitioner said lifetime ban was necessary for convicted lawmakers so that they did not enter electoral politics for life and is necessary to curb corruption and criminalization, the greatest menace to our democracy and development. He pointed out that 40 politicians, involved in serious heinous crimes like loot, extortion, murder, rape etc were the Members of the 11th Lok Sabha and 700 politicians of similar background were in the State legislatures. Arguments will continue on July 18.
