Jamia Millia Islamia
Criminalisation of Politics Seminar-I
Harshvardhan 11-BALLB-22
2
Table of Contents 1. Introduction....................... Introduction............................................. ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ........................3 ..3
1.1 Introduction to Criminalisation of Politics .......................................... ............................................................ .................. 3 1.2 Objective...………………………………………………………………………... Objective...………………………………………………………………………... 5 1.3 Hypothesis………………………………………………………………………..5 1.4 Review of Literature…………………………... Literature…………………………...………………………………… …………………………………5 5 1.5 Research Methodology...………………………………… Methodology...…………………………………... ...…………………….. ……………………..7 7 1.6 Chapter Plan…………………………………………….. Plan……………………………………………..………………………. ……………………….7 7 2. Nature of Problem……………………………………………………………………8 -9 3. Criminal Theories with Respect to Criminalisation of Politics............................10Politics............................10-11 11 4. Existing legal provision to discourage politicians with criminal records.............1213 5. Special privileges to members of parliament........................... parliament................................................. ............................14-15 ......14-15 6. Components of Criminalisation of Politics.................................... Politics.........................................................1 .....................16-17 6-17 7. Reasons behind Criminalisation of Politics................................... Politics........................................................1 .....................18-20 8-20 8. Legal Threads.............................. Threads.................................................... ............................................ ............................................ ..........................21-24 ....21-24 9. A brief analysis of the trend.............................. trend....................................................... ............................................... .......................25-29 .25-29 10. Lok Sabha 2014 and Current Scenario............................... Scenario..................................................... ..............................30-35 ........30-35 11. Recommendations Recommendations to curb Criminalisation of Politics............................... Politics.........................................36-37 ..........36-37 12. Conclusion................................ Conclusion...................................................... ............................................ ............................................ ............................38-42 ......38-42 13. Bibliography............................ Bibliography.................................................. ............................................ ............................................ .............................43-44 .......43-44
2
Table of Contents 1. Introduction....................... Introduction............................................. ............................................ ............................................ ............................................ ........................3 ..3
1.1 Introduction to Criminalisation of Politics .......................................... ............................................................ .................. 3 1.2 Objective...………………………………………………………………………... Objective...………………………………………………………………………... 5 1.3 Hypothesis………………………………………………………………………..5 1.4 Review of Literature…………………………... Literature…………………………...………………………………… …………………………………5 5 1.5 Research Methodology...………………………………… Methodology...…………………………………... ...…………………….. ……………………..7 7 1.6 Chapter Plan…………………………………………….. Plan……………………………………………..………………………. ……………………….7 7 2. Nature of Problem……………………………………………………………………8 -9 3. Criminal Theories with Respect to Criminalisation of Politics............................10Politics............................10-11 11 4. Existing legal provision to discourage politicians with criminal records.............1213 5. Special privileges to members of parliament........................... parliament................................................. ............................14-15 ......14-15 6. Components of Criminalisation of Politics.................................... Politics.........................................................1 .....................16-17 6-17 7. Reasons behind Criminalisation of Politics................................... Politics........................................................1 .....................18-20 8-20 8. Legal Threads.............................. Threads.................................................... ............................................ ............................................ ..........................21-24 ....21-24 9. A brief analysis of the trend.............................. trend....................................................... ............................................... .......................25-29 .25-29 10. Lok Sabha 2014 and Current Scenario............................... Scenario..................................................... ..............................30-35 ........30-35 11. Recommendations Recommendations to curb Criminalisation of Politics............................... Politics.........................................36-37 ..........36-37 12. Conclusion................................ Conclusion...................................................... ............................................ ............................................ ............................38-42 ......38-42 13. Bibliography............................ Bibliography.................................................. ............................................ ............................................ .............................43-44 .......43-44
3 14. Article................................... Article......................................................... ............................................ ............................................ ...............................45-46 .........45-46
4
Introduction
Introduction Introduction to Criminalisation of Politics
Elections at a regular interval is one the most important features of democratic polity, which is the central democratic procedure for selecting and controlling leaders. It constitutes signpost of democracy and the medium through which the attitudes, values and beliefs of the people towards their political environment are reflected. While it grants people a government, it also provides an opportunity to the people to express their faith in the govt and symbolise the sovereignty of the people and provide legitimacy to the authority of the government. Therefore, free and fair election is indispensible for the success of the democracy. Indian parliamentary democracy is the continuance of the British legacy and elections to the legislative bodies (both national and state) begin from 1952. Till the fourth general elections, that is, 1967, democratic election was largely free from any major flaw. In the fifth election of 1971, however, distortions in its workings appeared for the first time. This got multiplied in successive lections, especially in those held in the eighties and thereafter. Election in India is seen mutilated by the evil influences of money and muscle power which invariably lead to the criminalisation of politics. The trend is of big concern, as increase in the number of MP’s with criminal records from 128 in the 14 th Lok Sabha to 150 in the 15 th Lok Sabha. Undemocratic and autocratic selections and nominations of candidates by political parties are evident. In many cases, parties ignored honesty giving and resorting to money and muscle power. India is admired as a loadstar of democracy all over the world. It’s undoubtedly the largest democracy in the world. In his address to the Indian Parliament in November, 2010,
5 President of the United States of America Barack Obama commended the democratic system in India in the following words: “and instead of being lured by the false notion that progress must come at the expense of freedom, you built the institutions upon which true democracy depends free and fair elections which enables citizens to choose their own leaders without recourse to arms, an independent judiciary and the rule of law, which allows people to address their grievances, and thriving free press and vibrant free society which allows every voice to be heard.”
1
The electorate system in India by and large insulated from the executive and political influence. The task conducting free and fair elections is entrusted to an autonomous and independent Constitutional Body- Election Commission of India under Articles 325 and 326 universal adult franchises and prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, caste or sex in the matter of inclusion into the electoral roll. The power to resolve the election dispute is vested in the High Courts under Section 100 2 to maintain the purity and sanctity of the election process. Section 8 and 8A of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 provides disqualification of candidates contesting election on the grounds of conviction for certain offences and corrupt practice. Even though the elections are mostly conducted in free and fair manner, there are number of grey areas where urgent electoral reforms have to be introduced. The most alarming amongst them is criminalization of our political system. As per the analysis of the MP’s of the 15th Lok Sabha(2009) made by the National Election Watch(NEW) and Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), there are only 162 Newly Elected MP’s who have declared affidavits. Out of these, there are 76 MP’s having serious criminal cases
1
Available at http//www.whitehouse.govt/thepress-office/2010/11/08 The Representation of Peoples Act, 1951
2
6 against them.3 These figures raised serious doubt about the credibility of the representative character of our democracy.
Objective
Objective of this paper is to study the effects of criminalisation of politics in the real perspective and conclude how the advent of criminalisation in politics has affected the basic notion of free and fair election
Hypothesis
This paper deals with what is criminalisation of politics, how has it affected the election scenario in the country. It also will shed a light on the actual scenarios via graphs and charts.
Review of literature
1. Law Commission of India Reports: Refor m of the Elector al L aws (Report N o. 170) [ 1999] I NL C 170(1 M ay 1999)
– Background - Whether in a parliamentary form of government or a Presidential form, indeed in every democracy, the process of election should be free, fair and equitable. Fortunately, our
Constitution
seek to provide
for
a free
and fair
election
but
problemshave been arising in this regard on account of division in our polity on the basis of r eligion, caste, language, region and race. Free and fair elections are the very foundation of democratic institutions. However there has been a steady deterioration in the standards, practices and pronouncements of the political class, which fights the electi ons. Money-power, muscle-power, corrupt practices and unfair means are being freely employed to win the elections. Over the years, several measures have been taken by Parliament to amend the laws relating to elections with a view to check the aforementioned forces. This report, which has
3
Available at http//www.adrindia.org/research-and-report/LokSabha/2009
7 been prepared after extensive consultations, is a step in the said process. It is hoped that Parliament will take prompt action to give them legislative imprimatur. 2.THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951:
This act basically came in force to provide the necessary guidelines for the electoral process in India. It suggests every procedure involved in the electoral process; from the conduct of polls, the machinery involved for free and fair elections, to disqualification of members on certain grounds. Our focus is basically on the part III of the act which talks about the disqualification of members on certain grounds. CHAPTER III Disqualifications for Membership of Parliament and State Legislatures, from s.7 to s. 11 talks about the disqualification of members. 3. The Constituti on of I ndia
The constitution of India talks under s. 105 about certain rights and privileges under the subject of, Power s, Pri vil eges and I mmu ni ti es of Parl iaments and i ts member s.
These immunities give the member certain special privileges to carry out their duties in the parliament. th
4. Cri minal Behaviour – A Psychol ogical A pproach, 5 Edition, Written by – Curt R. Bar tol, Publi shed by – Prentice H all I nc. U.S.A.
– This literature was extremely helpful in understanding the human nature and criminal theories, which explain the phenomenon of criminalization of politics. th
5. Study of Composit ion of 15 L ok Sabha by National Election Watch with the help of Af fi davits provided by the Election Commission of I ndia
– This data base was the main source of information regarding the availability of statistics about the criminal records of Members of Parliament. The stats were taken directly from the affidavits available on The Election Commission’s website.
8
Research methodology
Doctrinal research has been carried out in the making of this paper. I have referred to various articles and reports from different entities.
Chapter plan
Chapter 1 deals with the introduction to the project, the objective of the study and the hypothesis.
9
Nature of the problem Criminalisation of politics in India has attained a stage, where it needs serious attention from the citizens, government and political parties as there is steady decline in values of all sections of our society. Criminalisation of politics has lead to immense pressure on functioning of political institutions. The worst part of the picture is that ‘criminal record’ becomes an essential qualification for entry into politics. In India politics is not a social service anymore. Instead it emerged as a lucrative profession or business. Today crimes are the shortest access to legislature and parliament in India. Success rate of criminals into electoral process is alluring the young blood of the century. It remains as a source of negative inspiration. It is now believed that the safest haven for criminals is politics and political parties have gone overboard in associating criminals with them more because of their muscle and money power to ensure victory in polls. Criminalisation of politics is visualised into two different senses: 1. In the narrow sense it refers to the direct entry and interference of criminals into state legislatures and parliament of India, and 2. In wider sense it refers to interference of criminals into politics either directly or indirectly like financing any candidate, providing anti-social manpower, booth capturing, contract killing of rival candidates, providing muscle power services, as well as campaigning or canvassing for any candidate contesting elections. Since last two decades the competitive use of anti-social forces for mobilisation of party funds, for management of elections, organising meetings and conference and even recruiting workers at lower levels from among anti-social elements has increased. Political parties from national to regional are taking the services of criminals to win
10 election have become common practices. Criminals lending outside support in the past was now changed to the criminal’s themselves entering the electoral arena. The criminals not only become the members of the house but even hold the post of ministers. Today we have a new phenomenon in Indian politicos called ‘tainted ministers’.
11
Criminal theories with respect to Criminalization of politics ‘Humans are creature of conformity who always wants to do the right thing’ – An excellent example of this conformity perspective in criminology is the 1) ‘Strain Theory’ of ‘Robert K. Merton’ .
Merton’s Strain theory argues that humans are fundamentally conforming beings. Most members of a given society desire what the other member of the society desire. For e.g. in America, accumulation of wealth or status is all important. However, it’s very important to understand that the access or means for reaching these goals are not equally available to everyone in the society. Some have the education, social network, personal contacts, and family influence and in some cases might. And some do not have these opportunities. The strain theory predicts that crime and delinquency occur when there is a perceived discrepancy between the materialistic values and goals cherished and held in high esteem by a society and the availability of the legitimate means for reaching these goals Thus, it can be easily contrasted in the Indian scenario that you will find most of the politicians who are committing crimes are basically criminal turned politicians, who in an attempt to legitimize their power got to politics. People who are educated are comparatively less prone to commit crime rather they will try to stick to democratic means. For e.g. you will find crimes in the political constituencies where there is illiteracy, poverty and no development at all. People from this marginalized areas in search of power resort to might.
12 2) Expectancy Theory – Julian Rotter is best known for drawing attention tithe importance of expectations about the consequences of behaviour. In other words, before doing anything, we ask, “what has happened to me before this situation and what will I gain this time?” Applying Rotter’s theory to criminal behaviour we should say that when people engage in unlawful conduct, they expect to gain something in the form of status, power, security, affection, material goods or living conditions. It becomes very clear from the above statement that politicians for instance will not hesitate to engage them in some unlawful activity if they gain something in return, preferably power or status. 3) Imitational Aspects of Social Learning – Bandura introduced the idea of, what he called Observational learning or modelling, to the social learning process.
He contended that much of our behaviour is initially acquired by watching others, who are called models. The observed behaviour of the model is also more likely to be imitated if the observer sees the model receive an award. Conversely, it’s less likely to be imitated if the model is punished. Bandura believes much like Rotter that once a person decides to use a newly acquired behaviour, whether he or she will maintain that behaviour depends on the prospects of the potential gain. Let’s understand this principle in the light of our topic. The newcomers in politics will find a model or guru in the political field, and if he follows a politician who has certainly achieved name and money by doing criminal acts, it’s highly likely that he will also follow the same footsteps. But if people have a good example that committing crime is a very serious mistake in society, people are less likely to resort to criminal behaviour.
13
Existing Legal Provisions to Discourage Politicians with Criminal Records The electoral law’s policy on criminals is as follows: (i)
Criminal accused even if charge- sheeted and undergoing trial can stand for election irrespective of how serious the charge is.
(ii)
(ii) Candidates convicted of communal and social offences shall be disqualified for six years if punished by fine; and if imprisoned further six years from release.
(iii)
Candidates convicted of profiteering, adulteration of food and medicine or under the Dowry Act shall be disqualified for six years from release if convicted for more than six months.
(iv)
Candidates convicted of any crime for 2 years or more shall be disqualified for six years from release.
(v)
Candidates who are sitting MP’s effectively continue as MP until the final appeal to the highest court through an MP’s loop-hole.
Also there are provisions of s. 7 to s. 11 which on certain grounds disqualify member from the house. But because of slow justice delivery system, criminals always are under trial and are thus allowed to contest the election and they win too. But thanks to judicial activism, 4 candidates including Sanjay Dutt were barred from contesting the elections in 2009 general
14 elections. This move was welcomed by many of the jurists. They said that stricter laws need to be implemented so that criminals go to “Prison and not parliament”
15
Special privileges to Members of Parliament There are many privileges given to the Member of Parliament under s. 105 of the Indian Constitution. They are as follows – 1. Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and the rules and standing orders
regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be fre edom of speech in Parliament. 2. No Member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceeding in any court in respect of
anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings. 3. In other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament,
and the members and the committee of each House, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and until so defined, [shall be those of that House and of its members and committees immediately before the coming into force of Section 15 of the Constitution (44thAmendment) Act, 1978]. 4. The provision of clauses (1), (2), and (3) shall apply in relation to persons who by
virtue of this Constitution have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, a House of Parliament or any committee thereof as they apply in relation to the members of Parliament. In relation to the project we’ll focus on the Law Courts and Privileges &Freedom from Arrest; Article 105, so also Article 194 subjects the powers, privileges and immunities
of each House as well as all its members and all its committees not only to the laws made by
16 the appropriate legislature but also to all other provisions of the Constitution. Both these articles far from dealing with the legislative powers of the Houses of Parliament or of State Legislature respectively are confined in scope to such powers of each House as it may exercise separately functioning as a House .A House of Parliament or Legislature cannot try anyone or any case directly as court of justice can, but it can proceed quasi judicially in cases of contempt of its authority or take up motions concerning its privileges and immunities in order to seek removal of obstructions to the due performance of its legislative functions. If any question of jurisdiction arises as to a certain matter, it has to be decided by a court of law in appropriate proceedings. For example, the jurisdiction to try a criminal offence such as murder, committed even within arouse vests in ordinary courts and not in a of Parliament or in a State Legislature. Also, a House of Parliament or State Legislature cannot in exercise of any supposed powers under Articles 105 and 194 decide election disputes for which special authorities have been constituted under the Representation of People Act, 1951 enacted in compliance with Article 329.In India freedom from arrest has been limited to civil causes and has not been applied to arrest on criminal charges or to detention under the Preventive Detention Act. Also there is no privilege if arrest is made under s.151 Criminal Procedure Code. It has been held in 4
, that matters of Parliament K. Anandan Kumar v. Chief Secretary, Government of M adras does not enjoy any special status as compared to an ordinary citizen in respect of valid orders of detention.
4
1966 AIR 657 SC
17
Components of Criminalisation of politics
Muscle power
The influence of muscle power in Indian Politics has been a fact of life for a long time. As early as in 1977, the national Police Commission headed by Dharam Vira observed : ‘the manner in which different political parties have functioned, particularly on the eve of periodic election, involves the free use of musclemen and ‘dadas’ to influence the attitude and conduct of sizable sections of the electorate. The Panchayat elections5, like other elections in recent past, have demonstrated once again that there can be no sanity in India as long as politics continues to be based on caste and religion.
Gangsterism
The politicians are thriving today on the basis of muscle power provided by criminals. The common people who constitute the votes are in most cases too reluctant to make measures that would curtail the criminal activates. One the political aspect joins the criminal elements the nexus becomes extremely dangerous. Many of politics choose muscle power to gain vote bank in the country, and they apply the assumption that, if we are unable to bring faith in the community then we can generate fear and threat to get in power in the form of election.
5
S.T. Beuria, ‘Panchayat at Polls Marred by Violence’, A Report in the Deccan Herald Bangalore on July 11 , 1992 th
18
Money Power
The elections of the parliament and state legislatures are very expensive affairs and it is a widely accepted fact that huge election expenditure is the root cause for corruption in India. A Candidate has to spend lakh of rupees to get elected and even if he gets elected, the total salary he gets during the tenure as an MP/MLA will be meagre compared to this election expenses. How can he bridge the gap between income and expenses? Publicly through donations and secretly through illegal means. The expenditure estimation for an election is estimated at Rs. 5 per voter as election expenditure, for 600 million voter, and calculation of all the expenses in general election is estimated around Rs. 2,000 crores. Then there is the period between elections. This requires around Rs. 250 crores. Then there are State Elections and local election. All told, the system has to generate around Rs. 5,000 crores in a five year cycle.
19
Reasons behind criminalisation of politics (1) Vote Bank: - The political parties and independent candidates have astronomical expenditure for vote buying and other illegitimate purposes through these criminals or so called goondas. A politician’s link with them constituency provides a congenial climate to political crime. Those who do not know why they ought to vote comprise the majority of voters of this country. Therefore majority of the voters are manoeuvrable, purchasable. Most of them are individually timid and collectively coward. To gain their support is easier for the unscrupulous than the conscientious. We have long witnessed criminals being wooed by political parties and given cabinet posts because their muscle and money power fetches crucial votes. Elections are won and lost on swings of just 1% of the vote, so parties cynically woo every possible vote bank, including those headed by accused robbers and murderers. Legal delays ensure that the accused will die of old age before being convicted, so parties virtuously insist that these chaps must be regarded as innocent till proved guilty.
(2) Corruption: - In every election all parties without exception put up candidates with a criminal background. Even though some of us whine about the decision taken by the parties, the general trend is that these candidates are elected to office. By acting in such a manner we fail to realize that the greatest power that democracy arms the people is to vote incompetent people out of power. Independence has taken place through a two-stage process. The first stage was the corrupting of the institutions and the second stage was the institutionalization of corruption.
20 As we look at the corruption scene today, we find that we have reached this stage because the corrupting of the institutions in turn has finally led to the institutionalization of corruption. The failure to deal with corruption has bred contempt for the law. When there is contempt for the law and this is combined with the criminalization of politics, corruption flourishes. India is ranked 66 out of 85 in the Corruption Perception Index 1998 by the German nongovernment organization Transparency International based in Berlin. This means that 65 countries were perceived to be less corrupt than India and 19 were perceived to be more corrupt.
(3) Loop Holes In the Functioning of Election Commission: - The Election Commission must take adequate measures to break the nexus between the criminals and the politicians. The forms prescribed by the Election Commission for candidates disclosing their convictions, cases pending in courts and so on in their nomination papers is a step in the right direction if it applied properly. Too much should not be expected, however, from these disclosures. They would only inform people of the candi date’s history and qualifications, but not prohibit them from casting their votes, regardless, in favour of a criminal. For the past several general elections there has existed a gulf between the Election Commission and the voter. Common people hardly come to know the rules made by the commission. Bridging this gap is essential not only for rooting out undesirable elements from politics but also for the survival of our democratic polity. This is an incremental process, the rate of success of which is directly proportional to the increase in literacy rate in India. The electorate have made certain wrong choices in the past, but in the future national interest should guide them in making intelligent choices.
(4) Denial of Justice and Rule of Law: - Criminalization is a fact of Indian electoral politics today. The voters, political parties and the law and order machinery of the state are all equally responsible for this. There is very little faith in India in the efficacy of the
21 democratic process in actually delivering good governance. This extends to accepting criminalization of politics as a fact of life. Toothless laws against convicted criminals standing for elections further encourage this process. Under current law, only people who have been convicted at least on two counts be debarred from becoming candidates. This leaves the field open for charge sheeted criminals, many of whom are habitual offenders or history-sheeters. It is mystifying indeed why a person should be convicted on two counts to be disqualified from fighting elections. The real problem lies in the definitions. Thus, unless a person has been convicted, he is not a criminal. Mere charge-sheets and pending cases do not suffice as bars to being nominated to fight an election. So the law has to be changed accordingly.
22
Legal threads (1) Vohra Committee: - 12 bombs blasts that shook Bombay on 13 march 1993, had involved the collaboration of a diffuse network of criminal gangs, police and customs officials as well as their political Patrons, a commission were institutes to investigate the so-called nexus. The report by N.N.Vohra found such deep involvement of politicians with organised crime all over India that it was barred from publication. Here Vohra observes "the various crime syndicate/mafia organisations have developed significant muscle and money power and established linkage with governmental functionaries, political leaders and other to be able to operate with impunity. As highlighted by the Vohra Committee Our elections involve a lot of black money and it is this use of black money in elections which has also brought about the criminalization of politics. After all, the story of the Hawala scam started by the police stumbling to the Jain diaries in their effort to trace the money received by the Kashmir militants. The scam brought out the linkage between the corrupt businessmen, politicians, bureaucracy and the criminals. The 1993 Bombay blasts which took away the life of 300 people was made possible because RDX could be smuggled by allegedly bribing a customs official with Rs.20 lakh. Some 15 years ago Vohra committee submitted its report to curb criminalization of politics but the fact is that no application in this way is being made. This was mentioned in the petition submitted by the Speaker of Lok Sabha and President of India on 16th may that- “The subject of criminalisation of politics is one that concerns the entire nation closely. It is deeply disturbing that on the one hand, our policy is tolerant of ‘fake encounters’ (summary executions) of alleged criminals and terrorists, while our highest representative body – Indian Parliament –
23 harbours people caught red-handed in acts of human trafficking, and convicted on charges of abduction and suspected murder.”
(2) Supreme Court’s Judgement: - The Supreme Court judgment of May 2, 2002 mandated that candidates disclose their criminal antecedents, if any, as also their financial and educational background. The Election Commission had proposed amendment of statutory rules and the format of nomination papers, to give effect to this judgment of the Supreme Court. The Apex Court judgement to check corruption among public servant is a welcome step. No law should provide protective shield to the corrupt public official and the court has rightly held that no prior sanction of competent authority would be required to prosecute them. With this order, 93 MPs and 10 ministers in Manmohan Singh's ministry are under the scanner on various criminal charges. This is appalling. It is ironical that the executive and legislatures who make and implement policies and guidelines for the development are themselves acting as stumbling block in the development of the nation. The role of Supreme Court becomes very important here. The Apex Court as custodian of constitution should take all necessary steps to strengthen democracy in the country. The legislature and executive have been complaining about the Supreme Court’s intervention on their domain, but it becomes imperative in such kind of unwanted situation. The Supreme Court of India upheld a PIL which made it mandatory for everyone seeking public office to disclose their criminal, financial and educational history. It was a way to ensure that the voters knew the important details about their “honourable” leaders, and steamed them were indeed. Some of the parties would be able to draw advantage from the Supreme Court order because they have had less opportunity to indulge in crime and corruption. They would have a greater chance of watching candidates of other parties squirm and suffer in agony. Some others might be happy because they already have efficient watchdog systems and batteries of
24 lawyers in place that would permit them to file counter-affidavits and challenge nominations of opposing candidates within hours of their being filed.
(3) Right To Information Act And Criminalization Of Politics:- The Court held that the right to information - the right to know antecedents, including the criminal past, or assets of candidates - was a fundamental right under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution and that the information was fundamental for survival of democracy. In its Judgement of May 2, 2002, it directed the Election Commission to call for information on affidavit from each candidate seeking election to Parliament or the State Legislature as a necessary part of the nomination papers on: Whether the candidate has been convicted / acquitted / discharged of any criminal offence in the past - if any, whether the candidate was accused in any pending case of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more, and in which charge was framed or cognisance taken by the court of law. If so, requires the details thereof; the assets (immovable, movable, bank balance, etc.) of a candidate and of his/her spouse and that of the dependents; liabilities, if any, particularly of any overdue of any public financial institution or Government dues; educational qualifications of the candidate. The Right to Information Act 2005 is a historical Act that makes Government officials liable for punishment if they fail to respond to people within a stipulated timeframe. Many public servants are leading luxurious lifestyles, beyond the legal sources of their income. Many public servants are filing false affidavits about their annual income, wealth details to Election Commission of India / Vigilance Commission / other authorities, as the case may be. These authorities are not properly verifying these affidavits. Many scams, scandals are coming to light day in & day out; politicians are accusing each other of involvement in scams. Whereas, the said authorities are keeping mum, as if those affidavits filed by tainted public servants are true. The tainted public servants are not even providing full, right information to public as per RTI Act, lest the truth come out.
25 This seen is very normal now a day that some public servants, caught red-handed during luxurious spending, they easily say that it is at their political party’s expense or their well wisher’s expense. However no entries are found in the account books of sa id parties to that respect. The law forbids public servants from accepting gifts, hospitality, favours beyond the value of rupees one hundred (Rs. 100), as it may be a form of bribe. But one may ask all these under RTI. Right to Know is an inherent attribute of every person. Right to know differs only in one sense with right to information. Right to know is a natural right and right to information is a provision given by government to its people. Natural rights do not have any value legally until they are legally considered. Hence right to know as such implied in the freedom of speech and expression which is a legally considered right must have to be given a special value. Right to information as such will bring transparency of the government activities and allow the people to find remedies for those things by which they suffered.
26
A brief analysis of the trends
Since Independence
After Independence, some of the first set of leaders emerged from the rural and urban elite. They were replaced by the rising aspirations of the Backward Castes who were numerically larger, and then by the Dalits. As the one party rule of the Congress was dismantled, there was greater competition for votes, and musclemen were often hired to enable candidates to intimidate voters, capture voting booths and stuff ballot boxes. There was violence during elections. A perceptive politician of the 1990s observed that musclemen realized that instead of working for a candidate, they were better off becoming candidates themselves. Such events were not unique to India and took place elsewhere. There are reports of stuffed ballot boxes and mafia involvement in Presidential elections in the US in the early 1960s.6 In India, we also witnessed the ‘aaya ram, gaya ram’ phenomena when MPs and MLAs changed parties, and brought down Governments as ruling parties and coalitions lost their majority. This was traced to the use of money and other incentives to lure them from one party to another. The Government did try to stem this by the Anti-Defection Law. However, experience has shown that this was not a sufficient deterrent. Along the way, the number of political parties grew and competition grew much faster. In the recent Lok Sabha 2014 elections, over 475 political parties contested for 543 seats, up from 392 in 2009. In 1950 there were 54 parties. In most so called developed countries, the number is at most half a dozen. Over 3100 Independents also contested in 2014 – that is nearly 6 per constituency on average. Of 475 parties, only 36 parties won some seat, 24 got 5 seats or less, and only 3 Independents won. There were nearly 15 candidates per Lok Sabha seat, up from 14 in 2009.
6
Chicago Tribune, April 24, 2005 “The Myth of 1960”
27 There are several hundred other parties that do not contest the Lok Sabha elections. In all there were six National parties, about 57 State parties, and over 1600 unrecognized political parties as per the EC data. One major reason for the proliferation of political parties is that they have not lived up to the people’s expectations. This provides space for new ones to emerge. Another reason perhaps is their misuse as tax shelters. But how do 475 parties compete for 543 Lok Sabha seats? Such fierce completion leads to much greater uncertainty for candidates and parties. We see high voltage, intense campaigns attacking rivals with in strong language, shrill speeches, fanning caste, religious and regional identities, pitting one group of citizens against another, and creating real and fictitious ‘others’ or enemies. Money has become an important factor in campaigns. Wealth is now concentrated, and income inequality is very high. The declared wealth of some ultra-high-net worth individuals (UHNI) is several times the combined declared wealth of all the politicians in Parliament put together. At the same time, inequality rose and India has the largest number of people below the poverty line. Exposure to consumer goods and lifestyles of the well to do has raised working class aspirations, and inequality has become more glaring. Voting percentages among the working class are much higher than those for the middle and upper classes. The margins of victory are often small. In the previous 5 Lok Sabha elections of 1998, 1999, 2004, 2009 and 2014, on average 32 seats were won with a margin of less than 1%, 69 with less than 2% and 101 with less than 3%. With hundreds of parties in the fray, over 10 candidates per constituency, and coalition Governments, an astute candidate today has to manage a small fraction of voters to win elections. (Though we now have single party rule in 2014, this may or may not change the two decade long trend). There is big money available to finance such elections. In a repeat of the muscle man turned politician of the 1980s, we now see the moneyed person turned politician today. A senior politician party said that 92%
28 of the applications for tickets were from builders and real estate businessmen in one southern city. The leader of the rival party agreed. Meanwhile the quality of representation in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies has changed. In the early years after Independence, the ruling party obtained between 45% and 47% of votes in the years 1951 to 1962. In the recent 2014 elections where a single party came to power for the first time in 30 years, it was 31%. In the intervening years of 1989 to 2009, it was much less as we had coalition Governments. The average winner obtained between 45.6% and 47.7% of the votes cast in the last 5 general elections between 1998 and 2014. In 1951 it was 50.9%. If we look at the percent of votes that MPs in the ruling party got out of the total votes cast in 2014, it is about 25.2%, up from 19% in the 2009 ruling coalition.7 In 1951 it was 28.9%. In 1951 an MP on average represented 354,000 voters, while today it is 1.53 million – result of the increase in population. So on all counts – total vote share of the ruling alliance, vote share of the MPs, vote share of the ruling alliance MPs, and number of voters an average MP represents, the quality of representation has declined. But the MPs in Parliament control the Government, large budgets, and new legislation. The revenue expenditure in the early 1950s was between Rs.400 and Rs.500 crores a year. In 2014 the revenue expenditure budget is over Rs.17.63 lakh crores – an increase of over 3900 times. Even at 10% growth, it should have gone up by about 500 times. Criminal records of candidates do not seem to play any role on election outcomes. An analysis of over 60,000 records of candidates and winners since 2004 shows that while only 12% of ‘clean’ candidates without any taint win, around 23% of tainted candidates win, and a similar 23% of seriously tainted candidates win. Either voters are not aware of these records, or for those who vote based on caste or religious affiliation, the question seems to be “when your leader commits such a crime, you all say and do nothing. Why do you blame my leader?”
7
The parties got more votes, but here the losing candidate’s votes are not being counted.
29
Overview of situation from 2004 to date a) Candidates. Data of over 62,800 candidates filed with the Election Commission
show that 11,030 (18%) had 27,027 pending criminal cases against them while 5,253 (8%) candidates had 13,984 serious criminal charges including murder, rape, corruption, extortion, dacoity etc. These include were 1229 cases of murder, 2632 cases of attempt to murder, and 496 instances of IPC sections on other cases related to murder (culpable homicide, abetment to suicide etc.). An average of 9% of all candidates fielded by political parties had serious 8 criminal cases. Without exception all parties had such candidates, varying from 4% to 17%. If we look at candidates with some criminal case, including so called ‘trivial’ cases, the average shoots up to 18%. b) Winners. The proportion of winners with criminal cases is 28.4% while only 18% of
candidates had such records. Similarly, 13.5% winners had serious criminal charges compared to 9% of candidates. In every type of criminal case, the percent amongst winners is much more. Civil society and the Election Commission have therefore asked for candidates with serious criminal cases to be barred from contesting elections. The Courts have also been inclined to take this view although they are not empowered to enforce this. ‘Winnability’ and Serious Crime a large percentage of candidates with serious criminal charges actually win the elections. While only 12% of candidates with a ‘clean’ record win on average, 23% of candidates with some kind of criminal record win, and more alarmingly, 23% of all those with serious criminal charges win. Nearly every party shows that a greater percentage of those with a serious criminal record win compared to those without any record. This partly explains the strong tendency of political parties to continue fielding people with badly tainted records.
8
serious criminal cases are offenses that: 1. Have a punishment is of 5 years or more, 2. Are non-bailable, 3. Pertain to elections, e.g., bribing voters, 4. cause loss to the exchequer, 5. relate to murder, kidnap, rape 6. Are mentioned in Representation of the People Act (Section 8), 7. Come under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 8. Are classified as crimes against women.
30
Relative chances of winning for clean and tainted candidates (All State Assembly,
Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha elections from 2004 to September 2013)
The average assets of candidates was Rs.1.37 crores, third place candidates Rs.2.03 crores, runners up Rs.2.47 crores, and winners Rs.3.8 crores. This clearly shows that wealthier candidates win more votes and elections. There are exceptions to this rule, but the broad trend over 62800+ candidates over the last 10 years is very clear. The interaction between crime and money is even more alarming. The average assets of winners with some crime record were Rs.4.27 crores, and of those with serious crime records was Rs. 4.38 crores. Rs.1.37cr Rs.2.03cr Rs.2.47cr Rs.3.8cr Rs.4.27cr Rs .4.38cr The average assets of elected MPs have gone up significantly, far more than that of candidates. The growth in assets of those who won with criminal records i s even higher:
31
The Lok Sabha 2014 Elections and Current Scenario This was a watershed election with the ruling party getting over 50% of the seats (282 out of 543) for the first time in 30 years, ending a long era of coalition politics. The BJP’s vote percentage rose by 118.9% from 78.4 million in 2009 to 171.7 million in 2014. The INC’s vote percentage went down by 10.2% from 119.1 million to 106.9 million. However, in terms of crime and money the data continue to be alarming. The percent of MPs with a criminal record is 34% in 2014, up from 30% in 2009, and for those with serious criminal records it is 21%, up from 15%. About 5% of candidates with clean records won, 13% of those with a criminal record won and 12.5% of those with a serious criminal record won. It shows that on average, the Parliament is slightly better than the State Assemblies. But nevertheless it is a matter of concern. As wealth increases from less than a crores to over Rs.50 crores, the chances of winning increase from 1.7% to 28.6% for clean candidates, and from 5.9% to over 40% for those with a serious criminal record. For the same wealth bracket, say between Rs.20 and Rs.50 crores, the chances of winning goes up from 30.1% for clean candidates to over 50% for those with serious criminal cases.
32
Meanwhile, the average assets of elected MPs have gone up from Rs.1.86 crores in 2004 to Rs.5.33 crores in 2009 to Rs.14.7 crores in 2014. This is an increase of 187% between 2004 and 2009 and 166% between 2009 and 2014, and a per year increase of Rs.1.23 crores over the ten years. There were about 4807 sitting MPs and MLAs as of August 2013. A total of 1460 (30%) sitting MPs and MLAs had criminal cases against them, and 688 (14%) had serious cases. For the first time, Parliament has a higher percentage than the average of State Assemblies with 34% MPs facing criminal charges, and 21% facing serious criminal charges. Money seems to help in winning elections, and having a crime record seems to further increase the chance of being elected. The underlying reasons for this trend need to be understood with further research. The issue of crime in elections has been debated at length in the media. Anyone with such charges, even if they are false, would not be appointed to any non political position, whether in the Government or the private sector. Perhaps the recent Supreme Court Judgments disqualifying convicted MPs and MLAs, and asking for speedy trials will help arrest this problem.
33 Campaign Finances
A former Chief Election Commissioner of India said while in office that about Rs.10, 000 crores of black money was spent in the 2012 UP Assembly elections 9. At Rs.25 crores in each constituency, and over 4000 Assembly seats all over India, this amounts to Rs.100, 000 crores. If we take the Lok Sabha elections with 543 seats this adds up to another Rs.12, 500 crores or a total of Rs.125, 000 crores. Estimates of the 2014 campaign expenses by the ruling party are between Rs.4000 and Rs.10, 000 crores. Local elections including Municipal, District, Block and Panchayat, easily double the figure of over Rs.100, 000 crores as there are lakh of contested seats. However, many of the Panchayat elections are never held. Estimates vary from a total of Rs.150, 000 crores to Rs.250, 000 crores for all elections put together. This occurs once in 5years and is adjusted for inflation as well. It should be noted that the estimate by the former Chief Election Commissioner shows clearly that candidates exceed the legal limit on election expenses several times over. If we go by the recent declaration of a politician who said he spent over Rs. 8 crores, it is 20 times the limit of Rs.40 lakh per Assembly constituency. At the same time, an analysis of the election expenses filed by candidates with the Election Commission for the 2009 elections shows that the average spend was Rs.4.3 lakh. Clearly there is under reporting of the election expenses. There is a provision in the RP Act that empowers the Election Commission to countermand an election for false declaration of electoral expenses. This raises several questions about the nature of elections and democracy. First, we need a much greater level playing field. This is clearly not the case where persons with greater wealth win elections. Second, persons with crime records who win have even greater wealth than those who win without any crime record.
9
New Indian Express, Jan 10, 2012: Reforms must to rid polls of black money; IBN Live Jan10, 2012: Cash haul in UP, Punjab: black money running Assembly polls? Times of India March 29, 2011: EC’s mission- track Rs.10, 000 crores in 2 weeks.
34 Former Chief Election Commissioner, N Gopalaswami says, "Politicians treat this expenditure as an investment, which will generate returns later." 10 If this is indeed the case, such people pose a threat to good governance since tax payers’ money and the Government budgets are in their control either directly or indirectly. In any case they wield a great influence on how the Government functions.
10
Quoted in Business Today, April 24, 2014, “Ceiling on legitimate election expenditure is too low”
35
36
Mp's with criminal records BJP INC SP SHS JD(U) BSP BJD AITC NCP DMK RJD CPM AIDMK RLD JD(S) TDP IVM VCK AIMIM SAD INLD JMM TRS AIFB
37
Recommendations to Curb Criminalization of Politics
Promoting Intra – Party Democracy and Transparency- Whether by design or by
omission, our Constitution does not provide for the constitution and working of the political parties, though they are at the heart of a parliamentary democracy. A parliamentary democracy without political parties is inconceivable. Yet the Constitution (except the Tenth Schedule which was inserted only in the year 1985) does not even speak of political parties whereas article 21 of the German Constitution (Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, 1949), which Constitution was also enacted almost simultaneously with our Constitution, provides for the establishment and working of the political parties. The Article reads thus: Article 21 (Parties) (1) the parties shall help form the political will of the people. They may be freely established. Their internal organisation shall conform to democratic principles. They shall publicly account for the sources and use of their funds and for their assets. Thus if the party doesn’t allow candidates with criminal records to contest in the election just imagine, how fair and free would be the democratic process in India. Fast Track Courts for Politicians with Criminal Records - many criminals are just
allowed to contest in the elections just because they are not convicted and under the trial of court. This practice can be avoided if special arrangements are made for speedy trial of the politicians with criminal records. Because it needs to be understood that such people should not be allowed to satin the highly esteemed house of parliament, which decides the fate of the country.
38
Stricter Laws – stricter laws need to be implemented to prevent criminals from
contesting the election. And once convicted he must be barred from contesting any election for the next 10 years or so. Plus parties with more no. of criminals must be blacklisted and disciplinary action must be taken.
39
Conclusion The Way Forward
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the longest serving US president, says “Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.” This echoes Gandhi’s statement on the need to educate voters. This is a demand side solution, and the onus for this lies squarely with civil society. It cannot and will not be done by the Government, political parties, religious institutions, media or business houses. The Election Commission does do this, but here we are referring to a deeper education that enables voters to see the whole election and governance process in totality. Perhaps the digital media which is far more democratic and decentralized will play a role in the coming years. At the same time supply side solutions are also required. If the rules of the game give greater incentive to misuse of money and power in elections, with no penalties, rising public awareness will in the long run lead to greater strife between the people and the Government. In the recent past several Commissions have been set up to examine the issue of electoral and political reforms. Another Law Commission has been recently appointed. On the legal front, there is a long list of suggested remedies by the various Commissions. There is no dearth of well thought out advice on issues of election expenses, criminalization, voter registration, and conduct of elections. The will to implement them is not there as yet. Here again civil society can play a catalytic role by carefully studying these recommendations and highlighting them to build public opinion. This is however a long and slow process, unless some crisis can trigger off change. But even for that the ground needs to be prepared. A bottom up approach
For the people, the real issue is not the level of criminalization of politics and the misuse of money power in elections. It is to have a Government that delivers results on issues that are
40 important. A report from Princeton and North-western Universities “suggests that (the) US political system serves special interest organisations, instead of voters.”11 A series of gallop poll surveys show that the American people’s trust in the Government is very low, with only 19% saying they trust the Government a great deal or a fair amount in 2010. 12 Though such reports are not available in India as yet, the survey of over 262,200 people mentioned earlier shows high levels of dissatisfaction with Government. A worldwide survey shows that trust in Government among ‘informed publics’ was low: U.S. (37 percent), France (32 percent) and Hong Kong (45 percent). “Populist sentiment is evident in the fact that among the general population trust in government is below 50 percent in 22 of the 27 countries surveyed, with strikingly low levels in Western Europe, particularly in Spain (14 percent), Italy (18 percent) and France (20 percent).” 13 In India trust is higher at 53%, but trust in business (75%) and NGOs (71%) is even higher. The key difference perhaps is the phrase “informed publics” used in the survey, with better educated and informed populations showing greater dissatisfaction. Coming back to the situation in Indian elections and democracy, there have broadly been two sides to civil society’s initiatives. One side is led by intellectuals, retired civil servants, academics and a few judges. Much valuable work has been done, and their focus is on supply side solutions, i.e., legal and administrative changes to address the problems. The people at large may or may not be concerned or aware about these issues and their importance. The other side is led by grass root activists, many of whom are leaders and intellectuals in their own right. They focus on people’s issues, particularly those of the poor and marginalized. Since elections are not fought on these issues, this may or may not impact elections and voting. However, the political system responds when voter behaviour changes. Civil society has not worked on raising voter awareness, and this is perhaps one of the most important gaps it can fill. People have lately voted out Governments that did not perform and re-elected those that did. However, the misuse of funds in elections, the criminalization of politics, the way elections are 11 12 13
The Telegraph, April 16, 2014 “The US is an oligarchy, study concludes” http://www.gallup.com/poll/5392/trust-government.aspx http://www.edelman.com/news/trust-in-government-plunges-to-historic-low/
41 funded by big money, and whether Government spending reflects “special interest organisations”, are issues on which much greater public awareness is needed. Once they learn to think about these issues, and about those who spend huge fortunes in campaigns, and are involved in serious crime, change will come. Well educated voters already do that, but their numbers are small and voting percentages among them smaller. Perhaps the major structural or supply side solution needed here is to have more democratic and transparent political parties. If we have opaque, autocratic political parties, we will not get transparent, democratic governments – a sine qua non for good governance in the 21 st century. Public pressure to pass suitable legislation on these reforms is required. Some strategic choices for civil society
Civil society needs a clear goal or vision. What type of democracy does it want to build? Is this vision coming from a group of well informed and well intentioned individuals and organizations? Or does it truly and continuously reflect the needs and aspirations of the people? As the ADR survey shows, people are more concerned about day to day life issues, than in building an ‘ideal’ democracy. An iterative process where civil society listens to what people want, and in turn ‘educates’ them may be one alternative. Public anger can be quickly mobilized every time there is a crisis or scam. It also dies down quickly and often nothing remains of the work done. Building a positive vision is slow and time consuming, but could prove to be far more stable and enduring. Thomas Jefferson echoed Gandhi and Roosevelt when he said "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but inform their discretion." While business and political interests are converging, citizen interests are not really being addressed. However policy making is in the hands of politicians, bureaucrats and increasingly, business interests. People’s issues are being ignored, and they are important only for getting
42 votes. In this evolving situation, what role does civil society play? It has questioned the whole paradigm in which the Government functions. It has attacked crony capitalism, and opposed mega projects that affected the lives and livelihoods of the poor. It is only those who are adversely affected by such projects who really oppose them. For the vast majority, such protests are increasingly being seen by the intellectuals, media and sometimes even the poor, as ‘anti development’. One reason is that there is no alternative vision being articulated by civil society. Civil society also needs to engage with powerful interests – and today it is the political and business sector – if they want change. Even Gandhi negotiated with the British. All this goes beyond the issue of electoral and political reform. But even in this domain, voter awareness needs to focus on establishing the link in voters’ minds between the current way elections are fought, and the bad governance we get as a result. One low hanging fruit is to get voters to reject candidates who spend huge amounts of money and those who have serious criminal records. Voters need to understand the implications of electing such people which includes corruption to recover electoral investments, sale of public and natural resources, and a shift in policy and budget allocations towards the interests of those who fund elections. People’s interests are of lower priority. This vote education needs to be based on verifiable facts, rather than ideology and opinion. Such a voter awareness campaign is difficult to do, and requires a lot of resources. It will also be long drawn out and needs to be a continuous process over decades. There will be counter campaigns giving diametrically opposite analyses and prescriptions. Do we need such a civil society? Or should all concerned people participate actively in politics? Perhaps a healthy society needs both – those who participate and those who monitor from the side lines and educate voters. Summary and Conclusions
Data show that the quality of candidates, elected representatives leaves much to be desired. The role of big money and crime is vitiating elections and democracy. Though Governments change, the profile of elected representatives does not change. Data also show that people at large
43 are not happy with the Governments’ performance. Once elected, Governments don’t always address the issues faced by ordinary people. Even when they do, they are not able to deliver results. Thus in the 21 st century, issues like drinking water and other basic essential services continue to be on the top priority list of the people. Employment like in other so called advanced countries is the top priority but we have had jobless growth since economic liberalization. Recent developments over the last couple of decades or more give cause for both hope and despair depending on what one looks at. Civil society has a vital role to play in this situation. However, it speaks with multiple voices and is not well coordinated. If these multiple voices truly reflect the people’s interests there is a need for dialogue to evolve a consensus. If they are merely the voices of the leaders of civil society, we need to replace them with people’s voices. Working together for the common cause of building a healthy democracy can achieve a lot. India’s genius has been toleration, accommodation and the principle of unity in diversity. Thus far this has manifested in religion, culture and language. If this is extended to modern Institutions of democracy, elections, politics and economics, much can be done. An Indian way of doing this is perhaps required, along the lines of Gandhi, avoiding not merely physical violence, but also mental and psychological violence in language, rhetoric and the way we deal with rival ideologies. Gandhi finessed various conflicts using Truth and Ahimsa. Today we have an opportunity to do the same using the aspirations of the vast majority of Indians as the common meeting point of civil society action. While there are several critiques, a positive, constructive, alternate vision of society, elections and democracy is still missing. However, the situation may be ripe for change. Some helpful factors include democratic, decentralized means of communication through the mobile and the Internet, greater awareness, and rising aspirations of the people. Shakespeare said "There is a ti de in the affairs of men, which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.” Time will tell which whether this will happen.
A country does not mean (only) the land, it means the people. - Gurujada Apparao, translated from Telugu
44
Bibliography [1] Union of India v Association for Democratic Reforms, Appeal 7178 of 2001 with Writ Petition (C) NO 294 OF 2001; 2 May 2002; Appeal from : CWP 7257 of 1999 (High Court, Delhi) [2] Writ Petition (Civil) No.490 of 2002 PUCL vs. Union of India, with Writ Petition (Civil) No.509 of 2002 Lok Satta vs. Union of India, and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 515 of 2002 Association for Democratic Reforms vs. Union of India [3] Central Information Commission Decision CIC/SM/C/2011/000838 dated 03-062013 [4] Central Information Commission Decision CIC/AT/A/2007/01029 and other appeals 29th April, 2008. [5] Writ Petition (Civil) No. 536 of 2011, Public Interest Foundation vs. Union of India; March 10, 2014 [6] Writ Petition (civil) 490 of 2005, Lily Thomas vs. Union of India; July 10, 2013 [7] Writ Petition (civil) no. 242 of 2001, B.R. Kapoor vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 21/09/2001 [8] SPL (Civil) of 2004, Chief Election Commissioner Vs Jan Chaukidar. [9] Writ Petition (Civil) 131/2013, Association for Democratic Reforms vs. Union of India, Delhi High Court, March 28, 2014 [10] Civil Appeal No.5044 Of 2014 (@ SLP (C) No.29882 Of 2011) Ashok Shankarrao Chavan vs. Dr. Madhavrao Kinhalkar & Ors with Civil Appeal No.5045 of 2014 (@ SLP (C) 14209 of 2012), Madhu Kora vs. Election Commission of India [11] Civil Appeal No. 4261 of 2007, Kisan Shankar Kathore vs. Arun Dattatray Sawant
