[Polity] Representation of People Act

[Ranjith]

Representation of People Act:

 

·         The Act came into force by the provisional parliament under Article 379 of Indian Constitution.

·         It provides the conduct of elections of the Houses of Parliament and State Legislature, the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of those Houses, the disputes, the corrupt practices and other offences at or in connection with such elections.

·         The Representation of People Act, 1951 was amended various times.

·         The most notable amendment was the one which abolished election tribunals.

 

 

Recent Happenings:

·         A PIL has sought amendments to the RPA, to bar legal heirs of political leaders from contesting elections or holding positions in the government.

·         PM had announced that the government had issued notifications for registration of overseas Indian electors under RPA to enable Indians resident abroad to participate in elections.

·         10 July 2013, SC upheld the decision of Patna HC that people in police custody cannot contest the polls.

o   Any person confined in prison or lawful police custody is not entitled to vote under the Section 62 of RPA. Also, the Apex Court gave its verdict that the imprisoned person is not entitled to contest the elections to the Parliament of India or the State Legislatures.

o   Section 8(4) of the RPA that enables the MPs and MLAs who are convicted of any crime or illegal offence while serving the term as the members, to continue in the office until the appeal has been disposed off against the conviction, is absolutely unconstitutional.

·         27 Aug 2013, The Rajya Sabha unanimously passed a bill amending the RPA, 1951, which will overturn the SC order banning those in jail and police custody from contesting elections. The amendment — once approved by the Lok Sabha — will maintain the right of those in jail to contest polls.

o   Political class is being looked upon with suspicion.

o   a person cannot cease to be a voter while in detention as his right is only temporarily suspended.

 

Anomalies and inequalities in RPA:

·         Section 8 of RPA deals with the disqualification of the members of legislatures convicted for certain offences. Under Sections 8(1), 8(2) and 8(3) of RPA the convicted Member of Parliament or state legislature shall be disqualified when she is sentenced to imprisonment by a court of law. Under Sec 8(3) of the RPA, a person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years shall be disqualified for that and a further six years after release.

·         However section 8(4) of RPA gives unreasonable advantage to the elected Members of Parliament and state legislatures. Under this section for a Member of Parliament or of the state legislature, the disqualification after being convicted by a court of law (as under Section 8(3)) would take effect only after three months from the date of conviction. Also the member would not be disqualified if she files an appeal against her conviction during this three month period in the higher court.

·         The pace of justice delivery in India is dismal. In certain cases the court of law takes decades to come up with the verdict. Thus a cushion of three months after the date of conviction provided under Section 8 (4) to the sitting Member of Parliaments and state legislature make the provisions of disqualification merely an eye wash.  Moreover under section 8(3) a person become ineligible to contest an election from the date she is convicted for more than two years by a court of law. But for the similar conviction a sitting Member of Parliament or state legislature is allowed to be member the house and implicitly given a time period of three months to appeal in the higher court. Can a person who is ineligible to contest the election, should have the right to continue as the Member of Parliament or state legislatures?

·         Based on the above logics, the Supreme Court in its landmark verdict of 10th July, 2013, declared Section 8(4) of RPA as unconstitutional. The verdict seeks to remove the discrimination between an ordinary individual and an elected law maker who enjoys protection under the RP Act. Nonetheless, the proposed amendment intends to nullify the judgment of Supreme Court or in other words it tends to perpetuate and strengthen the inequality between the common citizen and an elected representative.    

 

Electoral reforms proposed by Election Commission:

·         De-criminalization of politics – disqualifying a person against whom charges have been framed by a Court for an offence punishable by imprisonment of 5 years or more. (Currently only after conviction)

·         Political parties reforms – Transparency in fund raising & expenditure of political parties. EC should be empowered to regulate register/deregister of parties.

·         Misuse of religion for political gain can be questioned under HC.

·         To make `paid news’ an electoral offence.

·         Punishment for electoral offences to be enhanced

·         Ban on advertisements on achievements of the Government.

·         Prohibition of Campaign during the Last 48 Hours – Including print media

·         Punishment for false affidavit by candidates

·         Negative/neutral voting – none of the above option in ballot

·         Filing of election petition even against defeated candidates on the ground of corrupt practice

·         Ban on transfer of election officers on the eve of election

·         Rule making authority to be vested in the Commission

·         Totalizer for counting of votes – instead of counting areawise.

 

References:

http://www.halfmantr.com/jojo-mantra/1493-saving-the-qelectedq-criminals

http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/electoral_ref.pdf