Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR)[1] in its press release on 17 May 2009 observed that the nation has elected a more “criminally tainted” LokSabha this time. The release states that 15th LokSabha will have 150 of its members with criminal cases pending against them. Of these 73 members are charged with serious criminal charges. The corresponding figures for 14th LokSabha were 128 and 55. [2]
In the recent times section 49-O of the The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 [3] has caught the imagination of many reform-minded electors. In the 15th General Election many voters invoked this ‘rule’. For quite some time there has been a demand to introduce ‘none of the above’ option on the electronic voting machine. Now voters have taken to rule 49-O as a proxy for ‘none of the above’ choice. What would happen if ‘none of the above’ option or rule 49-O polls maximum votes? Can the candidates be banned from electoral politics, at least temporarily? Will the political parties that fielded such candidates in the first place learn the lessons? These are some questions that are sought to be answered in this post.
Section 49-O under Part IV of The Conduct Of Elections Rules, 1961 provides that “If an elector, after his electoral roll number has been duly entered in the register of voters in Form 17A and has put his signature or thumb impression thereon as required under sub-rule (1) of rule 49L, decided not to record his vote, a remark to this effect shall be made against the said entry in Form 17A by the presiding officer and the signature or thumb impression of the elector shall be obtained against such remark.”
A plain reading of the above section shows that section 49-O was not originally envisaged to enable the voter to reject all the contestants. But reform-minded citizens have found an innovative use for this section. Thus the invocation of section 49-O by a voter would mean a valid vote polled that will not be counted against any of the contestants. As the government is yet to take a concrete decision regarding introducing ‘none of the above’ option to the voter, 49-O is serving as a proxy. The way people have taken to it definitely forms a strong case in favour of introducing such an option to the voter.
What will happen when votes polled under section 49-O outnumbers the votes garnered by any of the contestants? This is an interesting situation. One needs to get back to the basics of electoral system. The kind of electoral system that India follows is called the ‘first past the post plurality voting system’. To put it simply, the one who garners the maximum number of votes shall be declared the winner without any other constraints such as absolute majority etc.[4].
Section 64 of The Conduct Of Elections Rules, 1961 which states the ‘returning officer shall declare the candidate to whom the largest number of votes have been given, to be elected’. As ‘none of the above’ option cannot be interpreted as a candidate and atleast one candidate will have the next highest vote tally, such a candidate can be declared the winner. Hence 49-O cannot render the election null and void.
So if 49-O cannot nullify an election then what purpose does it serve? It does send out an important message to the political parties and the government at large that the voters are not satisfied with any of the candidates and they want better candidates. It is upto the parties and the government to read the writing on the wall. Banning such candidates is discretion of the parties concerned. The Representation of People Act 1951 provides for banning individuals with more than 2 years of imprisonment for criminal offences from contesting in any election for 6 years.
Why not ban candidates with criminal and corruption antecedents all together from contesting elections? Again there are some weak points in this course of action. Political parties may use such a law for the purpose of political retribution.
As of now rule 49-O is the light at the end of tunnel. A lot needs to be done on electoral reform front. There is a need to mobilise the support of reform-minded people in this country and strengthen the case for electoral reforms. The government should enable the introduction of ‘none of the above’ option. During the absence of such an arrangement, section 49-O could be used as a proxy. Organisations such as Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), National Election Watch (NEW) should be supported in pushing through electoral reforms. Last but not the least the younger generation should remain vigilant regarding politics and always find time to participate in one or the other forms. In my view politics is too important a matter to be left to the politicians.
References:
[1] : Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) is a non-profit, non-partisan, non-governmental organization founded by a group of IIM professors and alumini. This organization works for strengthening democracy and governance in India by focusing on fair and transparent electoral process. Read more about ADR at http://www.adrindia.org.
1) National Resurgence through Electoral Reforms – Subhash C Kashyap,
817541118X, Shipra Publications.
1 comment:
hi the issues that u have raised are so pertinent...i have never given a thought to the aftermath...the efficacy of the provision 490 can only be ensured thru further reforms...
Post a Comment