๐ฉElection Commission Of India's Menifesto ๐ฉ
๐Election Commission-
⚜️Constitution on 25th January 1950.
⚜️It is not concerned with the elections to panchayats
⚜️It is an autonomous constitutional body.
✨election manifesto is a published document containing declaration of the ideology, intentions, views, policies and programmes of a political party.
✴️Provisions regarding Party's Manifesto(expenditure of EC rules and regulations)
๐The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment/order dated 5th July 2013 has inter alia directed the Election Commission of India to frame guidelines on election manifesto to be included as part of the Model Code of Conduct.
✴️Directions:
๐Para (77) of the Supreme Court Judgment:
๐the promises in the election manifesto cannot be construed as ‘corrupt practice’ under Section 123 of RP Act, the reality cannot be ruled out that distribution of freebies of any kind, undoubtedly, influences all people.
๐The fountainhead of the powers under which the commission issues these orders is Article 324 of the Constitution, which mandates the commission to hold free and fair elections.
✴️Existing Model Code of Conduct- relevant provisions
๐All parties and candidates shall avoid scrupulously all activities which are
⚜️“corrupt practices” and offences under the election law, such as
✅ bribing of voters,
✅intimidation of voters,
✅impersonation of voters,
✅canvassing within 100 meters of polling stations,
✅holding public meetings during the period of 48 hours ending with the hour fixed for the close of poll, and
✅the transport and conveyance of voters to and from polling station”.
⚠️These rules are not being followed as such in reality and ultimately leading to the threat to public voting rights and democratic structure.
✴️Roles of citizenship
๐The Media without being biased, NGo and civil socities ,Nukkad Nataks etc.should come forward to spread knowledge and information w.r.to the voting rights and what should be the positive approach of choosing the right candidate as their representative s for a better and fair governance.
✴️Criminalisation of Politics
๐Union of India v Association for Democratic Reforms
๐Election Commission was directed to secure affidavits by candidates recording all particulars relating to past or pending criminal charges or cases against them.
๐This included information as to whether the candidate was convicted/acquitted/discharged of any criminal offence in the past.
๐Additionally, if convicted, the quantum of punishment that was awarded; and whether prior to six months of filing of nomination, the candidate was accused of an offence punishable with minimum two years of imprisonment.
✴️ Amendment
๐Manoj Narula v Union of India
Recognizing the limitations of the powers of the Court in matters of appointment of Ministers, it was held that the judiciary could not read a disqualification not contemplated by the statute into Article 75(1). The Court left the appointment of Ministers with a criminal past to the discretion of the Prime Minister. However, it recorded that it can always be legitimately expected that the Prime Minister, while delivering on the Constitutional expectations, would consider not choosing a person with criminal antecedents against whom charges have been framed for heinous or serious criminal offences or charges of corruption to become a minister of the council of ministers.
๐ฉ Steps to curb money and Muscle Power-
๐The law minister stated that Election Commission has initiated a significant measure to curb the problem of money and muscle powers.
๐Opening of a separate division in the EC to oversee election expenditure.
๐ Appointment of expenditure observers and deployment of flying squads and surveillance teams to keep vigilance over movement of cash linked with candidates or political parties.
✴️Author's viewpoints in way forward๐
The basic structure of the democracy should not be malified ,it is an important building block of the "Indian Parliament " and it should be freed from the toxicities of the criminalized politics . We should value the democracy as a "heart and soul of a democratic nation " thus this quote is enough to remind what the real democracy stands for.
"Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, and for the people"
Extra bites*********
๐Party in Power stipulates inter alia that –
The party in power whether at the Centre or in the State or States concerned, shall ensure that no cause is given for any complaint that it has used its official position for the purposes of its election campaign and in particular-
✅ Ministers and other authorities shall not sanction grants/payments out of discretionary funds from the time elections are announced by the Commission.
✅Announce any financial grants in any form or promises thereof,
๐ (except civil servants) lay foundation stones etc., of projects or schemes of any kinds.
๐Make any ad-hoc appointments in Government, Public Undertakings etc., which may have the effect of influencing the voters infavour of the party in power.
✴️ Amendment
๐ฉPUCL v Union of India
๐The Peoples Union for Civil Liberties approached the Supreme Court challenging Section 33B of the Representation of People (Third Amendment) Act which nullified the decision in Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) by providing that candidates contesting elections need not file affidavit of criminal antecedents and particulars as directed by the Court.
๐This provision was held unconstitutional and void as it infringed the “right of electors’ to know”, a constituent of the fundamental right to free speech and expression and hindered free and fair elections, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
๐Manoj Narula v Union of India
A 5 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court was dealing with the question whether persons with criminal backgrounds and antecedents or those accused of heinous crimes were fit to be appointed as Ministers in Central and State Governments. Recognizing the limitations of the powers of the Court in matters of appointment of Ministers, it was held that the judiciary could not read a disqualification not contemplated by the statute into Article 75(1). The Court left the appointment of Ministers with a criminal past to the discretion of the Prime Minister. However, it recorded that it can always be legitimately expected that the Prime Minister, while delivering on the Constitutional expectations, would consider not choosing a person with criminal antecedents against whom charges have been framed for heinous or serious criminal offences or charges of corruption to become a minister of the council of ministers.
Comments