Model Code is a unique document
Source: The Echo of India
The classic example of filling such vacuous area is the promulgation of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 which governs the matters relating to recognition of political parties at the National and State level, reservation of election symbols for them, resolution of disputes between splinter groups of such recognised parties, and allotment of symbols to all candidates at elections, etc.
Another such vacuous area where the Election Commission exercises its inherent powers under Article 324 of the Constitution is the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct for guidance of political parties and candidates. The Model Code is a unique document evolved by the political parties themselves to govern their conduct during elections so as to ensure that a level playing field for all political parties is maintained during elections and, in particular, to curb the misuse of official power and official machinery by the ruling parties to further the electoral prospects of their candidates.
All post election matters to resolve doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with the elections are also dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1951. Under this Act, all such doubts and disputes can be raised before the High Court of the State concerned, but only after the election is over and not when the election process is still on.
The above mentioned Representation of the People Acts 1950 and 1951 and the Registration of Electors Rules 1960 and Conduct of Elections Rules 1961 form complete code on all matters relating to elections to both Houses of Parliament and State Legislatures. Any person aggrieved by any of the decisions of the Election Commission or the authorities functioning under it has to find a remedy in accordance with the provisions of these Acts and Rules.
These Acts and Rules enable the Election Commission to issue directions and instructions to deal with various aspects of the preparation/revision of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections and leave all such matters of detail to be dealt with by the Commission. Pursuant thereto, the Commission has issued a plethora of directions and instructions which have been consolidated by the Commission in various compendia and the handbooks for the Electoral Registration Officers, Returning Officers, Presiding Officers, candidates, polling agents and counting agents.
The laws enacted by Parliament and supplemented by the Rules and by the Commission’s directions and instructions there under have come for scrutiny of the Supreme Court in several important matters from time to time and a significant contribution to supplement those laws and to reform the electoral system have been made by the Apex Court. To give a few important examples, the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner (AIR 1978 SC 851) laid down that the Election Commission, being a creature of the Constitution, can supplement the laws made by the Parliament wherever the enacted law did not make a sufficient provision to deal with a situation arising in the course of the conduct of elections in a vast democracy like ours. It is in the exercise of such powers, that the Commission is enforcing the Model Code of Conduct which is a unique contribution to the cause of free and fair elections by the political parties themselves. Again, in the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties (AIR 2003 SC 2363), the Supreme Court mandated that every candidate contesting an election to Parliament or a State Legislature must furnish, on affidavit, all details with regard to his criminal antecedents, if any, his assets and liabilities as also of his spouse and dependent children, as well as his educational qualifications so that electors, the ultimate rulers in democracy, can make an informed choice while electing their representatives. Further, in the case of Resurgence India [LAWS (SC)-2013-9-35], the Supreme Court has recently laid down that if any candidate fails to furnish the requisite information in the abovementioned affidavit, dispute being reminded by the returning officer to do so, his nomination paper will be liable to be rejected by the returning officer at the time of scrutiny of his nomination papers.
Another significant contribution to the election law made by the Supreme Court has come in the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties[LAWS(SC)-2013-9-87], that a voter has a right to express his dis-satisfaction with all the candidates in the constituency and to caste a negative vote. To operationalise this judgment of the Supreme Court, the Election Commission has provided an additional button on the voting machines with the inscription ‘NOTA’ (None of the above) by pressing which the voter has a right to express that he does not wish to vote for any of the candidate. This enables the voters to express their desire in secrecy but the law does not say that if the number of votes recorded for the NOTA option is more than the highest number of votes recorded by any of the candidates; it will adversely affect his election.
In yet another landmark judgment in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy [LAWS (SC)-2013-10-20], the Apex Court held that the Electronic Voting Machines should have the provision for Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) so that when a voter cast his vote, a paper slip is printed showing the name and symbol of the candidate for whom he has recorded his vote. This will enable the voter to satisfy himself that the vote cast by him has been properly recorded and accounted for the candidate of his choice.
The classic example of filling such vacuous area is the promulgation of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 which governs the matters relating to recognition of political parties at the National and State level, reservation of election symbols for them, resolution of disputes between splinter groups of such recognised parties, and allotment of symbols to all candidates at elections, etc.
Another such vacuous area where the Election Commission exercises its inherent powers under Article 324 of the Constitution is the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct for guidance of political parties and candidates. The Model Code is a unique document evolved by the political parties themselves to govern their conduct during elections so as to ensure that a level playing field for all political parties is maintained during elections and, in particular, to curb the misuse of official power and official machinery by the ruling parties to further the electoral prospects of their candidates.
All post election matters to resolve doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with the elections are also dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1951. Under this Act, all such doubts and disputes can be raised before the High Court of the State concerned, but only after the election is over and not when the election process is still on.
The above mentioned Representation of the People Acts 1950 and 1951 and the Registration of Electors Rules 1960 and Conduct of Elections Rules 1961 form complete code on all matters relating to elections to both Houses of Parliament and State Legislatures. Any person aggrieved by any of the decisions of the Election Commission or the authorities functioning under it has to find a remedy in accordance with the provisions of these Acts and Rules.
These Acts and Rules enable the Election Commission to issue directions and instructions to deal with various aspects of the preparation/revision of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections and leave all such matters of detail to be dealt with by the Commission. Pursuant thereto, the Commission has issued a plethora of directions and instructions which have been consolidated by the Commission in various compendia and the handbooks for the Electoral Registration Officers, Returning Officers, Presiding Officers, candidates, polling agents and counting agents.
The laws enacted by Parliament and supplemented by the Rules and by the Commission’s directions and instructions there under have come for scrutiny of the Supreme Court in several important matters from time to time and a significant contribution to supplement those laws and to reform the electoral system have been made by the Apex Court. To give a few important examples, the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner (AIR 1978 SC 851) laid down that the Election Commission, being a creature of the Constitution, can supplement the laws made by the Parliament wherever the enacted law did not make a sufficient provision to deal with a situation arising in the course of the conduct of elections in a vast democracy like ours. It is in the exercise of such powers, that the Commission is enforcing the Model Code of Conduct which is a unique contribution to the cause of free and fair elections by the political parties themselves. Again, in the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties (AIR 2003 SC 2363), the Supreme Court mandated that every candidate contesting an election to Parliament or a State Legislature must furnish, on affidavit, all details with regard to his criminal antecedents, if any, his assets and liabilities as also of his spouse and dependent children, as well as his educational qualifications so that electors, the ultimate rulers in democracy, can make an informed choice while electing their representatives. Further, in the case of Resurgence India [LAWS (SC)-2013-9-35], the Supreme Court has recently laid down that if any candidate fails to furnish the requisite information in the abovementioned affidavit, dispute being reminded by the returning officer to do so, his nomination paper will be liable to be rejected by the returning officer at the time of scrutiny of his nomination papers.
Another significant contribution to the election law made by the Supreme Court has come in the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties[LAWS(SC)-2013-9-87], that a voter has a right to express his dis-satisfaction with all the candidates in the constituency and to caste a negative vote. To operationalise this judgment of the Supreme Court, the Election Commission has provided an additional button on the voting machines with the inscription ‘NOTA’ (None of the above) by pressing which the voter has a right to express that he does not wish to vote for any of the candidate. This enables the voters to express their desire in secrecy but the law does not say that if the number of votes recorded for the NOTA option is more than the highest number of votes recorded by any of the candidates; it will adversely affect his election.
In yet another landmark judgment in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy [LAWS (SC)-2013-10-20], the Apex Court held that the Electronic Voting Machines should have the provision for Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) so that when a voter cast his vote, a paper slip is printed showing the name and symbol of the candidate for whom he has recorded his vote. This will enable the voter to satisfy himself that the vote cast by him has been properly recorded and accounted for the candidate of his choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment