After this prototype had been tested by the ECI to its satisfaction, it was demonstrated to representatives of various political parties on August 5, 1980. Following a broad consensus, EVMs were first used in the North Paravur Assembly Constituency in Kerala in May 1982 in 50 out of 85 polling stations.

In the result, announced on May 20, 1982, the winner was declared to have secured 30,450 votes and the runner-up 30,327 votes. The difference between the two was only 123 votes. Of the 30,450 votes that the winner got, 11,268 were cast manually, “according to the conventional method provided in the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961”, using ballot papers and ballot boxes, and 19,182 votes were cast through EVMs. The runner-up challenged the result in court and the case finally landed up in the Supreme Court.

The challenge was based on the argument that the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, specifically mentioned that “ballot papers” will be used in “voting by ballot”, and describes the “Form of ballot paper” as “Every ballot paper shall have a counterfoil attached thereto, and the said ballot paper and the counterfoil shall be in such form, and the particulars therein shall be in such language or languages, as the Election Commission may direct,” and didn’t mention any other kind of voting. Therefore, voting by mechanical process, such as EVMs, was not permissible. The Supreme Court “set aside the election of the respondent with respect to the 50 polling stations where the voting machines were used” and directed “a repoll to be held in these 50 polling stations”.

Subsequently, the Representation of the People Act, 1951, was amended by Parliament in December 1988, empowering the ECI to use voting machines. A general consensus was finally reached in 1998, and EVMs were used in 25 legislative assembly constituencies across the three states of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Delhi. This restricted usage was gradually expanded till the final frontier was crossed in 2004 when more than 100,000 EVMs were used in all 543 parliamentary constituencies in the country in the general election to the 2004 Lok Sabha.

EVMs have been embroiled in some controversy or the other almost since their introduction. The first really serious objection came up in 2009 when LK Advani expressed doubts on the credibility and reliability of EVMs and demanded a return to paper ballots. The ECI countered these views saying that it was “absolutely satisfied that EVMs couldn’t be manipulated” and that a technical committee headed by former IIT Madras director P.V. Indiresan had been set up to ensure this. The Indiresan Committee subsequently certified that the machines were fully reliable.

In 2010, GVL Narasimha Rao wrote a book titled, Democracy At Risk! Can We Trust Our Electronic Voting Machines? Despite continued criticism from diverse quarters, one fact stood out: every political party criticized EVMs when it lost an election but the same party seemed quite satisfied when it won. This was confirmed in a series of assembly elections when different parties won or lost in various states. Criticism continued, and so did the use of EVMs.

In 2010, at an all-party meeting held in the ECI, a proposal to introduce a Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) for further transparency and verifiability in the poll process came up. The Technical Expert Committee on EVMs, appointed by the ECI, in consultation with the manufacturers of EVMs, ECIL, Hyderabad and Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL), Bengaluru, political parties and members of civil society, oversaw the development of a prototype in 2011. A large number of trials and field tests were done followed by changes in the design, and a second version of the VVPAT prototype was made. It was again subjected to rigorous tests and the Technical Expert Committee recommended use of this version of VVPATs on February 19, 2013.

The Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, were amended on August 14, 2013, enabling the Commission to use VVPATs with EVMs. VVPATs were used with EVMs for the first time in a by-election in 51-Noksen (ST) assembly constituency in Nagaland. Thereafter, VVPATs have been used progressively in various elections.

Doubts continue to be expressed about both and VVPATs. As far as the EVMs are concerned, it can be said with a fair degree of confidence that they can certainly malfunction, like any mechanical-electrical equipment, but the possibility of their being manipulated seems very farfetched. The VVPATs are, however, another affair.

Just before the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, 21 Opposition parties petitioned the Supreme Court that at least 50 percent of VVPAT slips or 125 polling booths in each constituency be counted for verification, instead of one EVM as the ECI was planning to do. The Supreme Court increased the number to five instead of one.

During the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, held in seven phases from April 11 to May 19, 2019, the ECI launched a new initiative in the form of a new application called the “My Voter Turnout App” (later replaced with “Voter Turnout App”) which “is used to display real-time voter turnout details of each Assembly Constituency/Parliamentary Constituency including the number of men, women and third gender”. As the election progressed through various phases, the data displayed by the app, for constituencies in which the polling process was over, seemed to change from one day to the next. In addition, serious discrepancies were found between the number of votes polled and the number of votes counted.

When this was brought to the attention of the ECI, it issued a clarification via a press note on June 1, 2019, saying inter alia:

“Also, Index Card in use since last over five decades, is prepared by the Returning Officer to furnish the voting data (including postal ballot data), polled and counted, after the declaration of the result, which becomes the final authenticated data for all purposes including analysis and research… For General Elections 2019, Commission has already directed all the Returning Officers on 26 March 2019 to send the Index Cards within 15 days of the declaration of the Result.”

“In earlier elections, it used to take months to collect such authenticated election data from all the ROs. Even in 2014, it took between two to three months after the declaration of results to collect and collate such data in authenticated form. Due to the innovative IT initiatives taken by the Commission this time, the final data on votes counted has been made available within a few days of the declaration of results.”

A simple reading of the above excerpts shows clearly that “the final authenticated data for all purposes including analysis and research,” is prepared and is available only “after the declaration of the Result.” It seems very strange, actually defies imagination, that the result is declared before the authenticated data is available!

Since satisfactory explanations were not available, these issues are now in the Supreme Court. It is hoped that the Court will be able to get these resolved so that people’s confidence in the electoral process is ensured.

This article was originally published on Civil Society Online.

लोकतंत्र के तीन प्रमुख तंत्र हैं- न्यायपालिका, कार्यपालिका और विधायिका. तीनों का ही कार्य और अधिकार क्षेत्र निर्धारित है. संसद के सदस्यों का कार्य अलग-अलग विषयों पर विस्तृत चर्चा कर कानून बनाना है. जबकि, कार्यपालिका का काम है- संसद द्वारा पारित कानून को प्रभावी तरीके से लागू करना और न्यायपालिका की जिम्मेदारी है कि वह तय करें कि कानून संविधान के दायरे में है कि नहीं. कानूनों की वैधानिकता को जांचने और व्याख्या करने की जिम्मेदारी न्यायपालिका की ही है.

अब सवाल उठता है कि सांसदों का जब यह काम ही नहीं है, तो उन्हें स्थानीय क्षेत्र विकास के लिए फंड देने का औचित्य ही क्या है? जनता का पैसा सांसदों को दे दिया जाता है, अब वे अपने क्षेत्र में जो चाहें, वह करें. हालांकि, एमपीलैड (सांसद स्थानीय क्षेत्र विकास योजना कार्यक्रम) फंड को जारी करने और उसके इस्तेमाल के लिए तमाम तरह के दिशा-निर्देश बनाये गये हैं. उन दिशा-निर्देशों का अनुपालन होना आवश्यक है. हालांकि, कई काम नियमों के अनुसार नहीं होते.

हाल में सरकार ने बताया कि एमपीलैड के तहत जारी कुल राशि में 5275 करोड़ रुपये खर्च नहीं किये गये. साल 2014 में चुने गये सांसदों ने 2004 और 2009 में चुने गये सांसदों के मुकाबले अपने फंड का प्रभावी तरीके से इस्तेमाल नहीं किया था. एमपीलैड योजना के तहत 15वीं से 16वीं लोकसभा के बीच खर्च न की जानेवाली राशि में 214 प्रतिशत से अधिक की बढ़ोतरी हुई थी. जबकि, सांसद द्वारा स्थानीय स्तर पर शिक्षा, स्वास्थ्य, स्वच्छता, कृषि और सड़कों आदि के विकास के लिए इस राशि को खर्च किया जाना चाहिए. इस योजना के दिशा-निर्देशों के अनुसार, स्थानीय स्तर पर सार्वजनिक हितों को ध्यान में रख कर इस राशि का इस्तेमाल किया जाये, लेकिन अक्सर यह होता नहीं.

संसदीय क्षेत्र में विकास कार्यों के लिए सांसदों को दी जानेवाली इस राशि से जुड़ा मामला जब सर्वोच्च न्यायालय में गया, तो न्यायालय को बताया गया कि सांसद तो केवल विकास कार्यों के लिए अपना सुझाव देते हैं. विकास कार्य को करने की जिम्मेदारी तो सरकारी अधिकारियों की होती है. व्यावहारिक तौर पर देखें, तो ऐसा कौन सा आइएएस ऑफिसर है, जो अपने क्षेत्र के सांसद की बात नहीं मानेगा. कुल मिलाकर यह सांसदों और विधायकों को जनता का पैसा देने का एक तरीका है.

नियम के अनुसार यह प्रक्रिया ही असंवैधानिक है, लेकिन जब सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने इसे मंजूरी दी है, तो इस पर सवाल ठीक नहीं. गौर करनेवाली बात है कि इस योजना के तहत जारी होनेवाला काफी फंड विकास कार्यों के लिए खर्च ही नहीं किया जाता. दूसरी बात, जो फंड खर्च भी किया जाता है, वह किस तरह के कार्यों पर किया जाता है, इसकी भी जानकारी जरूरी है. इस योजना के तहत किये गये कार्यों का फायदा किसे होता है, इस सवाल का भी हल ढूंढना जरूरी है.

पूर्वी दिल्ली में एक झुग्गी बस्ती है. वहां के जनप्रतिनिधि ने एक सूखे हुए पार्क में पानी का फव्वारा लगवा दिया. वहां लोगों के पास पीने का पानी नहीं था, तो फव्वारे के लिए पानी कहां से पहुंचता. कुछ लोगों का कहना था कि फव्वारा लगानेवाला ठेकेदार उस माननीय का रिश्तेदार था. इस प्रकार उस पैसे का दुरुपयोग ही हुआ. अगर स्थानीय स्तर पर ऐसे विकास कार्य कराये जायें, जिससे आमजन को फायदा हो, तो इस राशि की सार्थकता है, जोकि इस योजना के उद्देश्य में निहित है, अन्यथा पैसे का दुरुपयोग ठीक नहीं है.

नकुल मिलाकर देखें, तो एमपीलैड के तहत जारी पैसा किस तरह से खर्च किया जाता है, यह छिपी हुई बात नहीं है, लोगों को इसकी जानकारी होती है. इसका दूसरा पहलू भी है. कई ऐसे सांसद भी हैं, जो अपने क्षेत्र में विकास के लिए इस राशि का ईमानदारी से इस्तेमाल करते हैं. एक सांसद ने आईआईटी कानपुर में अपने फंड से एक नयी लैब बनवा दी थी. यह अच्छी बात है, लेकिन ऐसे काम करनेवाले बहुत कम लोग होते हैं.

जो सांसद अच्छा काम करते हैं, वे गिने-चुने ही हैं, ज्यादातर सांसद इन पैसों का गलत ही इस्तेमाल करते हैं. लोग अपने स्तर पर अच्छाई के लिए तो आगे आयेंगे नहीं. जब सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने इस पर अपनी मुहर लगा दी है, तो यह चलता ही रहेगा. एमपीलैड की काफी राशि बची रह जाती है. हालांकि, इसके गलत इस्तेमाल से यह बेहतर ही है.

एमपीलैड जनता के पैसे का दुरुपयोग है. इसका ज्यादा कोई फायदा फिलहाल होता नहीं दिख रहा है. जनप्रतिनिधियों को जो काम दिया गया है, उस पर वे ईमानदारी के साथ काम करें, तो बेहतर होगा. उन्हें संसद में बैठकर कानून बनाना चाहिए, उन्हें इससे जुड़े अध्ययन करने चाहिए. अपने क्षेत्रों में जाकर लोगों से मिलना चाहिए और यह पूछना चाहिए कि उनकी क्या अपेक्षाएं हैं. यह सब ये लोग करते नहीं हैं. कुल मिलाकर इस फंड से कोई विशेष फायदा है नहीं, नुकसान अधिक है.

The article was originally published on Prabhat Khabar.

This high-powered committee stated unambiguously that there was a “nexus between criminal gangs … and politicians … in various parts of the country…” and that there were “underworld politicians”.

Responding to a public interest litigation (PIL) by a civil society organisation, the Supreme Court ordered that every person contesting an election to the parliament or an assembly would have to disclose all criminal cases against him/her in a sworn affidavit, as a necessary part of the nomination form.

Data from these affidavits over the years resulted in what were then felt to be startling revelations. Out of 543 MPs of the Lok Sabha in 2004, as many as 128 (24 percent) had criminal cases pending against them. This number increased, and continues to increase, to 162 (30 percent) in 2009, 185 (34 percent) in 2014, and 233 (43 percent) in 2019.

In 2004, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) filed a PIL in the Supreme Court asking for a new button to be provided on the electronic voting machines (EVMs) called NOTA (None Of The Above). The primary purpose was to protect the confidentiality of a voter who wanted to cast his/her vote but did not want to vote for any of the candidates. The existing provision in 2004 was that such a voter would have to sign on a form saying s/he did not wish to vote for any of the candidates. Since these forms were preserved, the identity of the voter could be found out which created the possibility of some of the candidates harassing that voter because s/he did not vote for one of them. Secrecy or confidentiality of one’s vote so that one can vote without any fear of consequences is, in any case, an accepted principle of democracy all over the world.

The Supreme Court in a judgment delivered on September 23, 2013, directed the Election Commission to “provide necessary provision in the ballot papers/EVMs and another button called ‘None of the Above’ (NOTA) may be provided in EVMs so that the voters, who come to the polling booth and decide not to vote for any of the candidates in the fray, are able to exercise their right not to vote while maintaining their right of secrecy”.

The court made very significant observations in the judgment, one of which said, “When the political parties realize that a large number of people are expressing their disapproval with the candidates being put up by them, gradually there will be a systemic change and the political parties will be forced to accept the will of the people and field candidates who are known for their integrity.”

This was important because it had become clear over the years that political parties continued to give tickets to persons with very dubious records, including those of serious crimes. Lest it be considered an exaggeration, the 2019 Lok Sabha election had nine candidates who had rape
charges pending against them! It is sad that three of them did get elected.

When requested not to give tickets to such people, political parties claim (a) these people have very high “winnability”, (b) other parties also do the same, if we don’t our candidate will lose, and (c) people vote for such candidates.

The last reason is not correct. Regardless of the number of candidates, only about two or three have a reasonable chance of getting elected and these belong to leading political parties. If a voter does not deliberately want her/his vote to go waste, s/he will have no real choice whom to vote for. Data collected over several elections shows that almost half the constituencies have three or more candidates with criminal records.

This is why the Supreme Court’s observation that political parties will be “forced to accept the will of the people and field candidates who are known for their integrity” becomes important. It is worth noting that the Court did not use words such as “motivated” or “encouraged” but said “forced”!

The problem has been with implementation of the judgment. The Election Commission of India decided, in its wisdom, to implement the letter of the judgment while overlooking its spirit. It provided a NOTA button on the EVMs but did not change the process of deciding the winner. The result is that even if the NOTA button gets more votes than any of the candidates, the candidate with the highest number of votes after NOTA is declared elected. This goes completely against the “will of the people” to which the Supreme Court gave primacy.

Another factor that has prevented NOTA from achieving its full potential is that political parties and their leaders have been actively campaigning against NOTA. They have been asking people not to opt for NOTA because these votes have no impact on who gets elected. This, when the votes polled by NOTA have continued to increase gradually. Several constituencies have seen NOTA getting more votes than the winning margin, the difference between the votes polled by the winner and the candidate who came second. There have also been some, very few, cases where NOTA came at number 2, getting more votes than any of the candidates except the winner.

State Election Commissions
(SECs) who are responsible for conducting elections to panchayats and local bodies and are constitutional bodies independent of the Election Commission, have shown remarkable initiative in this regard. The SEC of Maharashtra issued a notification on June 13, 2018, saying: “If it is noticed while counting, that NOTA has received the highest number of valid votes, then the said election for that particular seat shall be countermanded and fresh elections shall be held for such a post.” While this was a very progressive step, it stopped short of giving NOTA the teeth that the Supreme Court intended. It would be possible for the same candidate to contest the fresh election and the situation could repeat itself indefinitely, frustrating the “spirit” of the Supreme Court’s judgment.

Another SEC stepped in and took the matter further. Just a few months after the Maharashtra notification, the SEC in Haryana issued a similar notification on November 22, 2018. This one said that if “all the contesting candidates individually receive lesser votes than … NOTA …,” then not only “none of the contesting candidates will be declared as elected” but “all such contesting candidates who secured less votes than NOTA shall not be eligible to re-file the nomination/contest the re-election”.

This is what makes NOTA what the Supreme Court wanted it to be. One hopes the ECI will follow the example set by the two SECs, honour the spirit of the Supreme Court’s judgment and the “will of the people”, “forcing” political parties “to field candidates who are known for their integrity”.

The article was originally published on Civil Society.

Image Credit: Civil Society

चुनाव में दुष्कर्म के मुकदमे वालों को टिकट देने से परहेज नहीं करती पार्टियां

इनमें से दो दलों भाजपा और कांग्रेस ने 2019 के लोकसभा चुनाव में ऐसे उम्मीदवारों को टिकट दिए जिन्होंने अपने शपथपत्र में लिखा था कि अदालतों में उनके विरुद्ध दुष्कर्म के मुकदमे चल रहे हैं। ऐसे लोगों को टिकट देने में ये दो दल अकेले नहीं हैं। राष्ट्रवादी कांग्रेस पार्टी, वाइएसआर कांग्रेस पार्टी और शिवसेना ने भी ऐसे कई उम्मीदवारों को टिकट दिए, जिनके विरुद्ध दुष्कर्म के मुकदमे चल रहे थे। बाकी आक्रोश दिखाने वाले नेताओं के दल भी इसमें पीछे नहीं हैं। उन्होंने 2019 के लोकसभा चुनाव में दुष्कर्म के मुकदमे वालों को टिकट भले ही न दिया हो, लेकिन उनकी पृष्ठभूमि कोई बाकी दलों से अलग नहीं है। बसपा ने लगातार तीन लोकसभा चुनावों 2004, 2009 और 2014 में दुष्कर्म के आरोप वाले उम्मीदवारों को टिकट दिए। सपा ने भी ऐसा ही किया था। इसकी भी अनदेखी नहीं की जा सकती कि बीते दिनों उन्नाव के चर्चित दुष्कर्म मामले में जिस कुलदीप सिंह सेंगर को दोषी करार दिया गया वह भाजपा सेनिष्कासित विधायक है।

लोकतंत्र के मंदिर में मौजूद तीन सांसदों पर दुष्कर्म के मुकदमे चल रहे हैं

किसी भी समाज के लिए यह बहुत दुखदाई होगा कि उसकी संसद में ऐसे सदस्य हों, जिन पर दुष्कर्म जैसे घृणित अपराध के आरोप लगे हों। खेद है कि हमारी वर्तमान संसद में तीन सदस्य ऐसे हैं जिन पर दुष्कर्म के मुकदमे चल रहे हैं। ये तीन सांसद भाजपा, कांग्रेस और वाईएसआर कांग्रेस पार्टी का प्रतिनिधित्व करते हैं। यह तो देश की सर्वोच्च पंचायत और लोकतंत्र के मंदिर संसद का हाल है। अगर हम विधानसभाओं में जाएं तो वहां की हालत तो और भी खराब है। अगर दुष्कर्म से आगे बढ़कर ऐसे उम्मीदवारों या विधायकों की संख्या देखें जो ‘महिलाओं के विरुद्ध आरोपों’ में आरोपित हैं तो वह संख्या और भी अधिक हो जाती है। सवाल है कि दुष्कर्म के खिलाफ नेताओं का यह आक्रोश दिखावटी क्यों है?

दिल्ली का निर्भया कांड ने खोली थी सरकार की आंखें

आज से करीब सात साल पहले हैदराबाद जैसी बर्बर दुष्कर्म की घटना दिल्ली के वसंत विहार इलाके में घटी थी। चूंकि यह बर्बरता देश की राजधानी में हुई इसलिए उसे लेकर विरोध-प्रदर्शन कहीं ज्यादा देखने को मिला। यह रोष जनता में तो था ही, राजनीतिक दलों के नेताओं ने भी उसकी बहुत भर्त्सना की और कानून को और भी सख्त बनाने की मांग की।

महिलाओं के विरुद्ध अपराध पर वर्मा समिति के सुझाव हुए बेअसर

इस विरोध के कारण तत्कालीन केंद्र सरकार ने उच्चतम न्यायालय के सेवानिवृत्त मुख्य न्यायाधीश जेएस वर्मा की अध्यक्षता में एक उच्चस्तरीय समिति बनाई। उसे देश के आपराधिक कानूनों की समीक्षा करने का काम सौंपा गया। साथ ही यह बताने के लिए कहा गया कि आखिर इन कानूनों में ऐसे क्या बदलाव किए जाएं कि महिलाओं के विरुद्ध अपराध करने वालों के खिलाफ मुकदमे बिना किसी विलंब के चलें? किस तरह ऐसे मामलों की त्वरित सुनवाई कर दोषियों को और भी कड़ी सजा दी जा सके? इसमें कोई दो राय नहीं कि जेएस वर्मा समिति ने बहुत मेहनत से काम किया। उसने 30 दिनों में ही सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट सौैंप दी। रिपोर्ट में उसने बहुत सारे सुझाव दिए। उन सुझावों के आधार पर कानून में कुछ छोटे-मोटे बदलाव किए गए, लेकिन जैसा कि देख सकते हैैं कि अपराधियों पर उनका कोई खास असर नहीं हुआ। हैदराबाद की जघन्य घटना से भी यह साबित होता है।

महिलाओं के विरुद्ध अपराध रोकने के लिए चुनाव सुधार आवश्यक

जेएस वर्मा समिति ने अपनी रिपोर्ट में 44 पृष्ठों का एक अध्याय भी लिखा था, जिसका शीर्षक है ‘चुनाव सुधार’। उस अध्याय में लिखा है कि देश में महिलाओं के विरुद्ध अपराध रोकने के लिए चुनावी प्रक्रिया में सुधार करना अत्यंत आवश्यक है। दूसरे शब्दों में कहें तो चुनावी प्रक्रिया में ठोस सुधार किए बिना महिलाओं के विरुद्ध अपराधों में कमी करना असंभव है।

जब तक संसद में आपराधिक किस्म के लोग बैठे हैं तब तक कानून पर विश्वास करना कठिन

समिति ने यह भी कहा था कि जब तक संसद में ऐसे लोग बैठे होंगे जो आपराधिक मामलों में आरोपी हैं तब तक देश की कानून बनाने की शैली और तौर-तरीके पर भी विश्वास करना बहुत कठिन है। समिति ने लिखा कि वह यह जानकर चकित रह गई कि उस समय छह विधायक ऐसे थे जिन्होंने स्वयं शपथ लेकर लिखा था कि उनके विरुद्ध दुष्कर्म के मुकदमे चल रहे हैैं।

जिनके विरुद्ध दुष्कर्म के मुकदमे चल रहे थे उन्हीं को थमा दिया विधानसभा चुनाव का टिकट

समिति इस पर भी बहुत चकित हुई थी कि पिछले पांच वर्षों में विभिन्न राजनीतिक दलों ने विधानसभा चुनावों में 27 ऐसे उम्मीदवारों को टिकट दिए जिनके विरुद्ध दुष्कर्म के मुकदमे चल रहे थे। समिति ने उच्चतम न्यायलय के विचारों का जिक्र करते हुए कहा था कि स्वाधीनता के 50 वर्ष पूरे होने पर संसद ने अगस्त 1997 में सर्वसम्मति से एक प्रस्ताव पारित किया था, जिसमें राजनीति के अपराधीकरण पर घोर चिंता जाहिर की गई थी। उसमें कहा गया था कि राजनीति के अपराधीकरण को समाप्त करने के भरसक प्रयत्न किए जाएंगे। उस अध्याय के अंत में समिति ने लिखा कि राजनीति में अपराधीकरण तभी समाप्त हो सकता है जब राजनीतिक दल यह करना चाहेंगे।

कानून बनाने का अधिकार केवल संसद को है- उच्चतम न्यायालय

समिति ने आगे लिखा कि हम तो राजनीतिक दलों से केवल निवेदन, प्रार्थना, विनती ही कर सकते हैं कि वे इन सब अच्छे इरादों को वास्तव में कारगर करें। यही बात 25 सितंबर, 2018 को एक बार फिर उच्चतम न्यायालय के समक्ष आई। पब्लिक इंटरेस्ट फाउंडेशन ने एक जनहित याचिका में उच्चतम न्यायालय से प्रार्थना की कि जिनके विरुद्ध गंभीर आरोप हैैं और जिनका संज्ञान न्यायालय ले चुका है उन्हें चुनाव में उम्मीदवार बनाने पर कानूनी तौर पर रोक लगाई जाए। हालांकि उच्चतम न्यायालय ने ऐसा करने से यह कहकर मना कर दिया कि कानून बनाने का अधिकार केवल संसद को है, लेकिन साथ ही उसने संसद से भी कहा कि ऐसे कानून की देश को शीघ्र आवश्यकता है।

सुप्रीम कोर्ट के कहने के बावजूद भी संसद ने भयावह घटनाओं को रोकने के लिए कानून नहीं बनाया

इसके बाद न्यायालय ने संसद से गुजारिश की कि वह देशहित में जल्द से जल्द यह कानून बनाए। यह बहुत ही दुख की बात है कि इस दिशा में अभी तक कुछ नहीं हुआ। आखिर इस सबको देखते हुए हैदराबाद जैसी भयावह घटनाओं पर उनकी ओर से आक्रोश व्यक्त करना अगर दिखावा नहीं है तो और क्या है?

Electoral bonds had a very auspicious beginning. The then finance minister, while introducing the Budget on February 1, 2017, introduced electoral bonds as a panacea “to cleanse the system of funding of political parties”. However, the same afternoon an indication came that there might be something more than met the eye when the minister said during his customary media interaction that “these bonds will be bearer in character to keep the donor anonymous.”

Subsequently, when details of the Finance Bill were made available it became clear that electoral bonds were a subterfuge to make electoral and political funding completely opaque. This was proposed to be done by amending three Acts — the Representation of the People Act (RP Act), Income Tax Act, and the Reserve Bank of India Act. It took the government almost a full year to notify the scheme on January 2, 2018. On the face of it, the scheme looks harmless. But it has several stipulations, the implications of which are not obvious. A couple of examples follow.

Section 29C of the RP Act requires political parties to make annual declarations of contributions received from individuals and companies in excess of Rs 20,000 each to the Election Commission of India (ECI). The amendment to this section says that the following shall be inserted, “Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to the contributions received by way of an electoral bond.” In simple terms, it means that political parties will not be required to disclose and declare any amount received by way of an electoral bond. Does this increase transparency or reduce it?

Section 13A of the Income Tax Act says “Special provision relating to incomes of political parties” which gives political parties 100 percent exemption from income tax. Only those parties are eligible for this exemption who “keep and maintain a record of such contribution and the name and address of the person who has made such contribution … in excess of Rs 20,000”, and submit this information to the ECI.

The operative part of the amendment to Section 13A says that “after the words ‘such voluntary contribution’, the words ‘other than contribution by way of electoral bond’ shall be inserted”. The real impact of this amendment is that political parties do not need to disclose donations by electoral bonds even to the Income Tax department.

Even more damaging are the amendments to the Companies Act. Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 182 of this Act stipulated that (a) a company could not contribute more than “seven and a half per cent of its average net profits during the three immediately preceding financial years” to any political party; and (b) a company making donations to political parties was required to disclose “particulars of the total amount contributed and the name of the party to which such amount has been contributed” in its profit and loss account. Both these requirements have been removed by the amendment of the Companies Act with the introduction of the electoral bonds scheme. The result is that now there is no limit to how much money a company can donate to political parties, and the names of the parties do not have to be revealed.

The most damaging aspect of electoral bonds is their potential to choke funding for all opposition parties, and channel all the funding to the ruling party. This is likely to hold regardless of which party is in power.

Here is how it works. The State Bank of India (SBI) collects “Know Your Customer” (KYC) particulars of the buyers of electoral bonds. While the explanation to the Electoral Bonds Scheme says that SBI will not share this KYC information with anyone, it defies common sense that any information with SBI will not be accessible to the finance ministry. And if the ministry is aware of something, then it is accessible to the ruling party. And once the ruling party knows who has bought electoral bonds, it is no rocket science to figure out how the party in power can “persuade” or “cajole” the buyer of electoral bonds to donate these bonds to itself.

An apprehension voiced when electoral bonds were introduced was proved to be justified by data from the financial year 2017-18. Electoral bonds worth Rs 222 crore were purchased in FY 2017-18. The 2017-18 annual audit report submitted by the BJP to the ECI showed that the party received Rs 210 crore worth of contribution in the form of electoral bonds. This means that 95 percent of all the electoral bonds purchased in 2017-18 were donated to the ruling party.

With Rs 6,128 crore donated to political parties between March 2018 and October 2019, it is clear how much money from unknown, and possibly unaccounted, sources flows into the political and electoral systems. The spike in the purchase of these bonds just before and during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections is also worth noting.

Problems with electoral bonds have been placed before the Supreme Court. The Court, in an interim order on April 12, 2019, said that “the rival contentions give rise to weighty issues which have a tremendous bearing on the sanctity of the electoral process in the country. Such weighty issues would require an in-depth hearing which cannot be concluded and the issues answered within the limited time that is available before the process of funding through the electoral bonds comes to a closure, as per the schedule noted earlier”.

The “process of funding through the electoral bonds” came “to a closure” a long time ago but the Supreme Court has not taken up this issue so far.

The code allows the social media platforms to implement policies and processes which assure access to information on electoral matters which are appropriate while keeping in mind the principle of freedom of expression.¹

With the increasing flow of fake news, paid news and hate speech to elevate the political propaganda, it becomes paramount to monitor political activities on social media. Following are a few measures taken by ECI and some social media giants:

• ECI made it mandatory for all the candidates contesting in 2019 elections to mention their social media handles in their affidavit. They also made it compulsory for all political social media advertisements to pre-certify from the Media Certification and Monitoring Committees (MCMCs) in place at the district and state levels.

• Facebook partnered with third-parties for fact-check and made their Ad Library public which displays all active and inactive ads around social issues, elections and politics to bring ad transparency. Similar ad library measure has been also opted by Twitter and Google.

• Google went one step ahead and hosted training sessions for Indian journalists on online verification and fact-checking, journalist digital safety and security, YouTube for elections coverage and data visualization for elections.

• Now, Twitter only allows political campaigning ads to run via promoted tweets and in-stream video ads. To run political ads, the political advertiser has to obtain Twitter Certification.²

• In a white paper called Stopping Abuse released by WhatsApp in early 2019, the company revealed that they deleted around 2 million accounts to tackle fake news. ³ These accounts have bulk or automated behaviour which means they send high volumes of messages. WhatsApp also launched CheckPoint Tipline which allows its users to submit suspicious content to know its authenticity. In 2 months of CheckPoint’s launch, it received about 75,000 authentication requests from the users.⁴

• ECI together with social media platforms have developed a notification mechanism. The electoral body notifies about the violation under Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act, and on other matters. Post which, an action is taken on such violations within three hours.

• During General Elections 2019, Twitter deleted around 220 tweets by May, Facebook deleted about 702 pages, accounts and groups (as reported on 01 April 2019).⁵ About 60 Facebook political advertisement posts were found during the silent period.⁶ These contents were taken down on the grounds of violation of Code of Ethics, communal hate, junk news and bypassing anti-spam.⁷

With this as the background, we land up with some important questions like how far we have reached with the above-listed regulation strategies. Are the implemented strategies enough to tackle the spread of fake news, hate speech and paid news for a country like India? Are voters even aware about the above-listed regulation strategies? How gravely have social media platforms affected General Elections 2019? Did the impact of social media decrease in this General Elections in comparison to General Elections 2014?

References:

1. https://www.thehindu.com/elections/lok-sabha-2019/social-media-platforms-present-voluntary-code-of-ethics/article26593315.ece
2. https://www.medianama.com/2019/03/223-election-commission-platforms-india-take-down-content/
3. https://www.medianama.com/2019/02/223-whatsapp-deleted-2-million-accounts/
4. https://www.firstpost.com/tech/news-analysis/whatsapps-tipline-feature-has-received-over-75000-authentication-requests-report-6692761.html
5. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/04/cib-and-spam-from-india-pakistan/
6. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/elections/lok-sabha/india/facebook-removes-574-posts-twitter-deletes-49-accounts-during-first-three-phases/articleshow/69034967.cms
7. Accountability Report by Internet Freedom Foundation

The rape and burning of the victim in Hyderabad are indeed a matter of shame for the whole country. However, the outrage expressed in the parliament about a week ago seemed surprising.

The honourable MPs who called for “summary execution”, seemed to be blissfully ignorant of what their own political parties have been doing for a rather long time.

Editorials in print newspapers named six political parties whose leaders, all of whom are or have been in parliament, called for “lynching” of rapists or something to that effect. The parties named are Samajwadi Party, DMK, Trinamool Congress, BJP, BSP, and Congress.

Out of these, two (BJP, Congress) gave tickets for the 2019 Lok Sabha election, to candidates who had declared in their self-sworn affidavits that they had charges of rape pending against them. These two were not alone, NCP, YSRCP, and the Shiv Sena also fielded a candidate each with rape charges.

Coming to other parties whose leaders called for lynching or similar actions, BSP has the unique distinction of fielding one candidate with rape charges in each of the three consecutive elections to the Lok Sabha: 2004, 2009, and 2014. The Samajwadi Party gave its ticket to what an honourable MP would call a ‘rapist’ because a rape charge is pending against him, in the 2014 Lok Sabha election.

Of course, the current Lok Sabha has the dubious distinction of having as three of its so-called honourable members men with rape charges pending against them. The parties they represent are BJP, Congress and YSRCP.

The numbers for state assemblies are of course, larger, and the numbers for charges for ‘offences against women’ even larger.

Why is it hypocritical?

The outrage expressed by members of parliament and other political leaders sounds hypocritical simply because we have been down this path often in the past without anything serious or worthwhile being done about it.

It was exactly seven years ago, in 2012, when late in the evening on a terrible December day, a not-too-dissimilar gruesome act was perpetrated in Delhi. Being in the national capital, it created possibly an even bigger outrage not only among the politicians but more so in the public.

Under intense public pressure, the government of the day constituted a committee chaired by a retired Chief Justice of India, Justice J.S. Verma, “to look into possible amendments of the Criminal Law so as to provide for quicker trial and enhanced punishment for criminals, accused to committing sexual assault of extreme nature against women.”

The Committee worked with great dedication and produced a report with a large number of very important recommendations within 30 days. There have been some changes in laws but nothing seems to have changed on the ground as the Hyderabad incident shows.

What is important while considering whether political parties and their leaders are being hypocritical or not, is that fact that the Verma Committee devoted a full chapter of 44 pages to ‘Electoral Reforms’.

The Committee was “of the opinion that electoral reform within India is integral to the achievement of gender justice and the prevention of sexual offences against women.”

The Committee was “concerned about the integrity of the legislative process, in particular with regard to the reform of the criminal justice system, if lawmakers themselves have serious charges – of which cognizance has been taken by a court of competent jurisdiction – pending against them” (italics added).

The  Committee was “shocked” and “surprised” to learn that “six MLAs (had) declared that they (had) charges of rape against themselves in the affidavit” and that “political parties (had) given tickets to twenty-seven (27) candidates who contested the State elections in the last 5 years who (had) declared that they have been charged with rape.”

While tracing the efforts to reduce the impact of criminalisation on politics, the Committee noted “an attempt on the part of Parliament to undo the effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms” which required candidates to disclose pending criminal cases against them.

The Committee also noted the Supreme Court’s observations that

“…even parliament in the debates on 50 years of independence and the resolution passed in its special Session in August, 1997 had shown a great concern about the increasing criminalisation of politics; it is widely believed that there is criminal nexus between the political parties and anti-social elements which is leading to criminalisation of politics, the criminals themselves are now joining election fray and often even getting elected in the process. Some of them have even adorned ministerial berths and, thus law breakers have become law makers”.

Towards the end of the chapter, the Committee said “this requires the cooperation of political parties for its translation into an effective law and then into consistent, reliable practice. We can only request political parties to take all steps necessary in this light.”

And at the very end, the Committee observed “a parliament which consists of persons with criminal records is unlikely to pass any effective Criminal Law Amendment reform. There is a distinct conflict of interest… We can do no more than appeal.”

Such appeals have not worked and political parties and their leaders keep expressing outrage while not doing anything to remedy the malady.

If this is not hypocrisy, one wonders what is.

Jagdeep S. Chhokar is a former professor, dean, and director-in-charge of Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIM-A), and a founding member of Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). Views are personal.

This article was originally published in The Wire

RBI advised against it, saying it would result in “encouraging money laundering”. The scheme was announced on 1 February 2017, against the views of the RBI. Multiple meetings between the finance ministry and RBI were held, right up to the finance minister and the RBI governor, in July and August, when RBI repeatedly highlighted problems with the electoral bonds scheme.

According to RTI documents, RBI’s views were overruled by the finance ministry, which said that the central bank had not understood the proposed mechanism and that RBI’s repeated opinion was overruled just because the Finance Bill had “already (been) printed!”.

The Election Commission (EC) wrote to the law ministry in May 2017 also saying that the electoral bonds as proposed would have serious impact on the transparency aspect of funding of political parties, with the possibility of shell companies being created only for making donations and warned it could increase the use of black money.

A series of meetings later, a secretary in the finance ministry recorded on 22 September 2017, the EC was “reasonably satisfied about the electoral bonds being a fair and more transparent system of political donations” albeit with nothing on record to show this was true. On the contrary, the EC filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in March 2019 saying that electoral bonds, in their current form, should be scrapped.

Misleading, or lying to the Parliament also took place when then minister of state for finance, P. Radhakrishnan informed in response to a question in Rajya Sabha that the government had not received “any concerns from the Election Commission on the issue of Electoral Bearer Bonds”.

Why a government would resort to such actions. Despite this clear stipulation of “general elections to the House of People”, the Prime Minister’s Office ordered that the scheme be opened for state assembly elections. This was a case of the government breaking a rule that it had itself made.

Rules were broken again when the finance ministry ordered the State Bank of India to encash expired bonds worth ₹10 crore. Out of the bonds worth ₹220 crore sold in 2017-18, as much as ₹210 crore (95%) was donated to the BJP.

The third point is critical. Observers had expressed an apprehension, at the introduction of the scheme, that it had the potential of choking the funding for all opposition parties, and may give a huge undue advantage to the ruling party. This has been proved to be true.

To summarise, it is a scheme which two constitutional authorities—EC and RBI—have said will encourage money laundering and lead to increased use of black money for political funding through shell companies. It is also a scheme which was introduced despite such opposition from constitutional authorities just because the Finance Bill was “already printed”, in defence of which a minister misled Parliament and, finally a scheme which enables the ruling party to corner all the political donations and almost completely choke the flow of funds to all opposition parties.

If this is not bad for democracy, one wonders what is!

The above article was originally published in Live Mint.

Engineering defections has become an accepted way of running politics, with the bizarre spectacle of MLAs being held captive in expensive 5 star deluxe resorts for weeks. Who pays for this and why? Are our MLAs so untrustworthy that they have to be kept captive? How then can we trust them in the Assembly?

The cost will be borne by the people of Karnataka, the Election Commission and the government and not the defectors. We need to note that funds spent by the Election Commission and the government are people’s money raised through taxes. A lot of time and effort have been wasted that could have been used for productive purposes.

An overburdened Supreme Court with a huge backlog of cases has spent time on this. Work slowed down during the transition from one government to the other. Regular work suffers, a code of conduct comes into play and government decisions are delayed.

The Election Commission estimates that Rs 30 crore will be spent on the bypolls alone. In addition to this, candidates and political parties are spending a huge amount of money as this has become a prestige issue. Where is this money coming from? Will it be spent only for winning or for giving a better government?

Meanwhile, Bengaluru’s roads and Metro construction continue to cause traffic jams affecting thousands of people daily. Lakes are breaching and flooding homes and governance has taken a back seat.

Not only in Bengaluru, but elsewhere as well, because the leaders are focussing on the upcoming bypolls.

However, the 15 MLAs who defected have gained. The total assets of these defecting MLAs has gone up by Rs 234 crore in one year. How did their assets go up so much in such a short span of time? Will there be any investigation or will it depend on which party comes to power post the elections? Is this justified?

There are issues that go beyond the letter of the law.

Has democracy won? Should those responsible for causing so much disruption be asked to pay and be held accountable?

In the Mahabharata, the Rishi Vaishampayana says, “For the sake of a family, a member may be sacrificed”.  Individual rights of ordinary citizens, for instance, are curtailed when buildings and homes are demolished for road widening. Similarly, for the sake of society, the individual right to defect from a party must be weighed against the greater public good. Ideally, a defector should wait till the term of the government is over or resign but not be allowed to recontest.

If we let them resign, they should give a sworn affidavit in a prescribed format explaining to the people why they resigned, why they joined a new party and so on. Submitting a false affidavit is in any case a criminal offence.

As a routine, their finances should be investigated on defection. When voters reject such politics and candidates, things will change. Democracy cannot be used to derive private benefit at public cost.

The above article was originally published in The New Indian Express.