The Union government decided to take up cudgels on behalf of the political class, or at least those members of it who could find themselves on the wrong side of the law, and also opposed any move to place restrictions on the freebies they can promise voters in their manifestos.
Both moves were criticized by political reform activists who see them as part of efforts by the political establishment to protect its own interests.
The government filed a review petition in the Supreme Court (SC) against verdicts of the apex court that disqualified lawmakers who were convicted by a court and barred those in prison or those who had been convicted from contesting elections.
The decision, the petition said, would jeopardize a government that has a thin majority, they said, citing the contents of the petition. Supreme Court advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan was critical of the government’s petition. “It boggles my mind as to how governance is anyway prejudiced if a criminal politician is allowed to continue in the House, with his disqualification stayed,” he said. “A wafer-thin majority government ought not to be protected merely because its majority is maintained on the shoulders of criminals.”
Section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act gave a window of opportunity to convicted lawmakers to appeal within three months, during which period, disqualification would not take effect. Disqualification would be on hold until the appeal was disposed of by the court. The apex court struck down this provision.
There has been strong opposition to the verdict by all political parties on the grounds that the “supremacy of the Parliament” should be maintained.
The petition asserted Parliament’s right to legislate on the disqualification of members, as the Constitution hasn’t specified the grounds. It also raised the issue of the irreversible impact of the disqualification to the extent that the reversal of a conviction wouldn’t lead to restoration of membership.
The government is also seeking a reference to a “larger constitution bench as it relates to interpretation of articles in the constitution” and that failure to do so would constitute an error.
Sankaranarayanan said the section is discriminatory.
“The simple fact is section 8 (4) discriminates between a sitting legislator and the rest of the populace, simply because one of them occupies a place of high position of power and the others don’t,” he said.
At the Election Commission-convened meeting, the political parties also opposed guidelines for manifestoes, criticizing a 5 July order of the apex court that asked the commission to come up with guidelines on freebies offered by parties in their manifestos.
All major national political parties said that there should be no such restriction.
(Source: Mint Newspaper dated 13-08-2013)
