On Thursday, the Supreme Court reserved its judgement on a batch of petitions challenging the appointment process of election commissioners, the officers who comprise the Election Commission – the body responsible for conducting national and state elections.

Scroll.in spoke to Jagdeep Chhokar, co-founder of the non-governmental organisation Association for Democratic Reforms and one of the petitioners in the case, about why he filed the petition and what he hopes to achieve.

Edited excerpts from the interview below.

What are the problems in how the election commissioners are appointed today? Does the process have any checks and balances?

According to Article 324(2) of the Constitution, they are appointed by the president subject to any law made by the parliament in this regard.

Then there are other articles in the Constitution that say that the president will work under the advice and guidance of the cabinet. So effectively, what it means is that the cabinet appoints the election commissioners.

And there are no checks and balances. The prime minister sends a recommendation to the president on behalf of the cabinet, and then the president appoints. The Union government has the entire discretion.

The other issue is that when the chief election commissioner’s term gets over, there is always a mystery about who will be made the chief election commissioner.

In general, so far, it has always by and large happened that the senior of the two election commissioners gets appointed as the chief election commissioner. But there is always this speculation about who will be made the chief election commissioner.

The other problem is that while the chief election commissioner cannot be removed from his position unless there is a process of impeachment like that of a Supreme Court judge, the other two election commissioners can be removed from their positions merely on the recommendation of the chief election commissioner.

So that is another problem. Because if the two election commissioners have this thing in their mind that the chief election commissioner can recommend my removal, then perhaps they would find it difficult to take a position against the chief election commissioner.

What’s the relief that you want from the court in this particular case?

In this case, we want that the selection of the election commissioner should be done by a collegium consisting of the prime minister, the leader of the Opposition and the chief justice of India.

The second is that election commissioners should be given the same constitutional protection as the chief election commissioner.

And the third is that it should be laid down, specifically, that the senior-most election commissioner will become the chief election commissioner.

These are the things that we have proposed. There would be many more that we will learn over time.

Have there been any controversies in the past regarding the appointment of election commissioners?

There is a checkered history [regarding election commissioners]. Earlier, the election commission used to be a single-member commission. There used to be only one chief election commissioner. Then somewhere down the line, during the time TN Seshan was the chief election commissioner, he was doing a lot of things that the government did not approve of. So to put a check on his power, so to say, the government [in 1989], through the President, created the post of two more election commissioners.

Now the Election Commission was a three-member commission and the decision will be made by the majority, hoping that these two will check the powers [of the third commissioner].

Then, about three or four years ago, there was one election commissioner who dissented from a decision by the other two. And this happened on some issues which had something to do with allegations of violation of the Model Code of Conduct by the prime minister and the home minister.

So then there were reports that this particular election commissioner, his past was being searched with a fine toothcomb. And there were apparently some kind of raids or intimidation of his wife and his son and so on. So this went on for a while, and then it was reported that this gentleman has been appointed as a vice president in a multilateral body. So he resigned from the election commissionership.

Usually, who are the people who are appointed election commissioners?

All retired bureaucrats, by and large, Indian Administrative Service officers. There are very few exceptions, but they are all also bureaucrats from other central services.

Are there any appointments that raise a suspicion about them being close to the Union government?

A lot of them. I would not like to name anyone. But this is all circumstantial evidence. There could be people from a particular state cadre, who might have a preponderance [towards the government]. And then somebody who has worked with some senior-level politician in the past very closely.

These kinds of things often happen.

One of the reasons why these things are brought up is because how these appointments are made is not known to anybody. So out of the blue, you have an announcement that so and so has been made election commissioner.

For example, this appointment that was made a few days ago – the post had been vacant for something like six months. And the hearing in the court started and an application was filed that there is a vacancy that should not be filled until the case is decided.

And the very next day, a serving Indian Administrative Service officer who was the secretary to the government of India took voluntary retirement from service. He was given voluntary retirement, and the next day he was appointed as an election commissioner.

It could be a sheer coincidence, but when things happen, sometimes it defies that it is a coincidence. So that creates doubts. Actually, a lot of it is a lack of transparency.

If there was a process of selecting election commissioners that was transparent, such doubts will not be raised.

What instances have been there recently where there have been allegations of the election commission acting in a way that distorts free elections?

So there are mysterious things that happen and when not reasonable explanations are coming forth, then one wonders what is going on. Electronic voting machines are found in strange places. There are constituencies where a large number of voters are not found on their voters’ list.

Some people do insinuate that people of particular categories are found to be missing from the electoral rolls. The Election Commission has to answer for it.

Then, there are violations of the Model Code of Conduct. Somebody makes a speech that can be considered to be seeking votes on religious grounds. And that is ignored. Whereas another member of another party says something similar in a slightly different context and that person is given a notice.

So similar kinds of infractions by people of different parties being treated seemingly differently.

Take, for example, on November 7, the Finance Ministry issued a notification that in a year when there is an Assembly election, an additional window of 15 days for the sale of electoral bonds will be available.

But elections are still happening in Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat, and the Model Code of Conduct is in force. And the Model Code of Conduct says that the government cannot introduce any new policy which may have a bearing on the result of the election without taking permission from the Election Commission of India.

So this announcement is a violation of the Model Code of Conduct. And people have written to the Election Commission and there has been no response.

There is also the thing about the announcement of dates. For example, even this time, for Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh elections, the dates when the result will be declared were announced. And dates of polling for Himachal Pradesh were announced, but the dates of polling for Gujarat were not announced.

So some people have felt that this is not the right thing to do and perhaps leeway was being given to a particular political party to do some announcements before the dates of polling are announced. So these kinds of things keep happening, and they create misgivings about the impartial role that the Election Commission should be playing.

Sometimes in a small state, elections are held in seven phases and [other times], in a similar sized state, it is held in one phase. There are rumors that this is being done so that particular people can campaign in every phase, and so on.

A similar process exists for the appointment of the Central Bureau of Investigation director. But still, there have been allegations of unfairness about these appointments also. So will this panel help with bringing fairness to the appointment of election commissioners or will it only be slightly better than the current position?

It will be significantly better. If you recall, in the appointment of the CBI director a year ago, the then chief justice did not agree with what was being proposed and then names were changed.

See, the process is finally managed by three or four people. But if each of them is true to their jobs, then they will do what they think is the best for the country as a whole.

And then if one of them finds that the other two are in collusion, then it would be that person’s responsibility to bring it out in the public domain.

Allegations also exist for state election commissions. For instance, like in West Bengal, there were allegations that the Panchayat polls were influenced in favor of the state’s ruling party. What do you think about the reforms in state election commissions?

State election commissions are a totally different ballgame.

Because there is only one state election commissioner in most places, and the appointment is done by the governor at the recommendation of the state government. And in most places, these are retired officers who are not direct recruits to the Indian Administrative Service but who have been departmentally promoted to the Indian Administrative Services.

So they are sort of supposed to be more malleable than the direct entry Indian Administrative Service officers. And are perhaps amenable to greater pressure than the central Election Commission.

So that is a very different activity. Our petition does not cover the state Election Commissions.

The article was originally published on Scroll.in.

चुनाव का एलान होते ही नेताओं का दलबदल शुरू हो गया है। नेताओं के इस दलबदल में सबसे ज्यादा ठगा महसूस करता है मतदाता। ऐसा इसलिए भी होता है कि हमारी चुनावी व्यवस्था में मतदाताओं से पूछकर उम्मीदवार उतारने की कोई प्रक्रिया ही नहीं है। राजनीतिक पार्टियां किसी को भी कहीं से खड़ा कर देती हैं और मतदाताओं को उन्हीं में से चुनना होता है। उम्मीदवार का फैसला जमीन पर नहीं बल्कि पार्टियों के हाईकमान से होता है। जनता की इसमें कोई भूमिका नहीं होती। इसीलिए पार्टी बदलते समय भी नेताओं को जनता के प्रति कोई जवाबदेही नहीं अनुभव होती है।

कई साल पहले कांग्रेस ने हैदराबाद के एक नेता को मुरादाबाद में उतार दिया। स्थानीय कांग्रेसियों ने इसका विरोध किया और प्रचार करने से मना कर दिया। उन दिनों सौ रुपए रोजाना लेकर पोस्टर आदि लगाए जाते थे और प्रचार का काम किया जाता था। उस उम्मीदवार ने उन्हें तीन सौ रुपये रोजाना देने का आफर दिया। सभी मान गए। प्रचार शुरू हो गया। इसलिए पैसे के दबाव में स्थानीय कार्यकर्ता भी विरोध से कतराते हैं।

1935 में बंबई (अब मुंबई) में सहकारिता के लिए काम कर रहे वैकुंठ भाई मेहता को लोगों ने चुनाव में उतरने को कहा लेकिन वह नहीं माने। उन्होंने महात्मा गांधी को पत्र लिखकर पूछा कि क्या करना चाहिए। महात्मा गांधी ने उन्हें जवाबी पत्र में कहा कि लोग कह रहे हैं तो आपको जरूर लड़ना चाहिए, लेकिन आप किसी से वोट मांगने नहीं जाओगे और कोई पैसा खर्च नहीं करोगे। वैकुंठ भाई मेहता ने ऐसा ही किया। वे भारी मतों से चुनाव जीत गए।

ऐसा नहीं है कि लोगों से जुड़ा व्यक्ति चुनाव नहीं जीत सकता है। लेकिन राजनीतिक दलों ने पैसे को इतना महत्व दे दिया है कि अब केवल पैसे वाले या आपराधिक पृष्ठभूमि वाले ही आगे आ रहे हैं। आंकड़े बताते हैं कि 50 प्रतिशत से ज्यादा सीटों पर आपराधिक पृष्ठभूमि वाले उम्मीदवार हैं। राजनीतिक दल भी अब कुछ धनाढ्य सात-आठ परिवारों की बपौती बन गई हैं। ऐसे में मतदाता लाचार होकर रह जाता है।

एक समस्या यह भी है कि चुने गए लोग भी अक्सर पार्टी हाईकमान के हाथ की कठपुतली ही होकर रह जाते हैं। दलबदल विरोधी कानून लाया गया था कि विधायकों, सांसदों की खरीद-फरोख्त न हो सके। हालांकि अब देखने में आता है कि आधी पार्टी ही टूटकर दूसरे में मिल जाती है। जब तक राजनीतिक दलों की कोई जवाबदेही तय नहीं होगी, तब तक इसका कोई हल निकलता नहीं दिख रहा है।

यह लेख मूल रूप से दैनिक जागरण द्वारा प्रकाशित है.

Prof Chhokar speaks to Sanjukta Basu, from National Herald, on the struggle for free and fair elections.

The Election Commission says linking of the electoral roll with Aadhaar data base will help clean up electoral rolls. Will it really result in error-free electoral rolls?

Aadhaar and voter ID cards are conceptually two different things, one is a proof of identity and residence while the other is a proof of citizenship. They should not be linked for several reasons. Firstly, the Supreme Court verdict is clear that Aadhaar can only be used for government services and benefits and no other purpose. Voting is not a benefit; it is a fundamental right. Therefore, this move is clearly against Supreme Court’s judgment.

Secondly, in 2015 the Election Commission of India (ECI) launched the NERPAP (National Electoral Rolls Purification & Authentication Programme) and started linking Aadhaar and voter ID. But the move was soon suspended by the Supreme Court. But by then around 55 lakh people in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana were disenfranchised due to various technical problems in the linking process.

My wife and I both personally experienced some of these problems when our finger-prints did not match. They had to clean the fingers, followed by cleaning the machine; it was a terrible hassle. The AADHAR database itself is full of discrepancies and needs correction. So, to make that the basis of voting is deeply flawed.

Is the apprehension that such linkage can be manipulated or misused by political parties genuine?

Definitely. It has the potential of selective disenfranchisement of various groups based on any criteria. The risk is genuine no matter which party is in power. As of now, whoever can access the data may potentially misuse it. Let me also add, this itself is not the end, it is one of the means towards a larger, more worrying objective which includes one nation one election, one electoral roll for all elections and so on.

What steps should the Election Commission take to clean up the electoral rolls? How much have they succeeded till now?

ECI is trying a quick and technical solution to a very serious problem. The cleaning up of electoral rolls is nobody else’s job but ECI’s and it can only be done by going to door to door and putting in real blood and sweat, that is what EC is mandated to do.

What are some of the important recommendations related to electoral reforms made by the EC, Law Commission and ADR, which have not been accepted as yet by the Government?

It is a long and sad saga. Reforms, criminalization of politics, role of money in politics have been talked about for 50-60 years but no government ever wanted to actually do anything about it. The existing system benefits all governments across party lines and they have found ways to play around the system and are scared of any change.

There have been around 60-100 proposals sent to the government in the last decade or so. In 2004, a list of 22 proposals was sent to the then Prime Minister. In 2016, then Chief Election Commissioner sent about 62 recommendations. These have been piling up but the government of the day cherry picks the recommendations it thinks is convenient, as they have done with the Aadhaar linking.

To name some of the important ones, firstly to democratize political parties by enacting a legislation. We often say “India has a vibrant democracy” but if the political parties, the pillars of democracy, do not function in a democratic way, how would they build a vibrant democracy? Every party has a high command, a core group or a supremo who takes decisions. ADR had requested Justice Venkatachaliah to draft a law in this regard which was done 10 years ago. We took it to all political parties but nobody was interested.

Secondly, financial aspects of the political parties should be transparent. How much money they get, where do they get it from, via what process and how is the money spent – these information should be available to voters. Without financial transparency we will never know who is controlling the elections. Donations to political parties are not charity, it is a quid-pro-quo arrangement, rather it is an investment.

Supposedly, the parties are already bound by RTI Act but none of them comply. In 2013, the Central Information Commission said that the six national political parties are public authorities under the RTI Act but they have refused to accept it and the matter is in the Supreme Court in which Union of India has argued against it.

Thirdly, the issue of criminals in politics. In 2004, when we did the National Election Watch for the first time, we found that 25% of the Lok Sabha members had pending criminal cases. That figure went up to 30% in 2009, 35% in 2014 and 43% in 2019. Some of these cases are of serious nature like murder and rape. In any other country this is absolutely unthinkable. Foreign counterparts often ask us, “Is this true? How can a person with a criminal case sit in Parliament?”

ADR wrote letters to Presidents of all political parties requesting them to not give party tickets to those with pending criminal cases. To no avail. Then, when they got elected, we again wrote to the Presidents requesting them to not make them ministers, again to no avail. We do not even receive an acknowledgement of the letters we write.

The presence of criminals in politics is tied to the use of money in politics which comes from criminal activities. It has been suggested by the Election Commission and ADR many times that a person who has a case registered against them at anytime before one year of the election, which is punishable with one year or more of imprisonment, and in which charges have been framed by a Court of law should not be allowed to contest election. It has not been implemented and this matter too is pending in the Supreme Court.

The Election Commission also wanted to use ‘Totalisers’. But the Government turned it down saying it needed to learn booth level voting patterns for better governance. Was it a valid ground?

Totalisers are very useful but again governments across party lines have been dragging their feet on it because if it is used, the parties will not be able to identify the booths where they receive fewer votes. They identify the booths and harass and intimidate people if they do not get their votes. Totalisers were in use before the EVMs came when the ballot papers of several booths used to be mixed up.

VVPAT units were connected to the EVMs in 2019 following Supreme Court’s directions. How useful have they been? And why cannot they be counted to match the EVM tally since we have already invested in buying and storing the machines and in any case use paper?

The interface between the Voter, EVM and VVPAT is not clear. When you press the button on the EVM, it sends a message to the VVPAT which shows a slip that shows whom you have voted for. But whether the information that goes from VVPAT to the counter unit is authenticated or not has not been clearly established.

The VVPAT manufacturing companies are also hiring a lot of private engineers/ personnel on contract which is not a comforting fact. In 2019 elections there were instances of the data being changed without any explanation; in some cases, the number of votes polled and counted were different which raised doubts. The process of counting has to be transparent. There should be complete tallying but it is not happening.

The appointment of the EC and CEC also requires reform. At present they are appointed by the government of the day without consulting anybody. They may even appoint somebody who has not been an EC as the Chief Election Commissioner. Even though traditionally the senior most EC is appointed the CEC, tradition is not law. The appointments should be mandated by law and only then will the ECs gain confidence to function independently. The ECs must have better constitutional protection and secure tenures, the same as the CEC. These should change and there should be a collegium for appointments and tenures etc.

Your name recently came up in the Pegasus snooping, your response? Were you surprised? Worried?

My response was why are they wasting money by snooping on me; my phone is open and available. All ADR information is in public domain and there is nothing confidential.

The interview was originally published in National Herald.

How would you like to play a game in which one of the players can change the rules at will? If you point out it is not a fair game, the answer comes, ‘but the playing field is level!’ This is not altogether an imaginary situation about Indian elections, indeed as made clear by a press release dated December 30, 2021, which said that the State Bank of India (SBI) had been authorised to issue and encash electoral bonds from January 1 to 10, 2022. Elections are round the corner in five states and preparations for the next General Election are already underway.

Electoral bonds were first announced by the then Finance Minister (FM) in his budget speech on February 1, 2017, as an innovation to bring “transparency in electoral funding”. The same afternoon, the FM, in a media interaction, said, “These bonds will be bearer in character to keep the donor anonymous.” The scheme was notified on January 2, 2018. Since then, ‘anonymous’ funding and a ‘transparent’ election process has continued to co-exist peacefully in this land of democracy.

The chronicle of the crime was foretold in full public view, almost like that famous Gabriel Garcia Marquez novel. The only difference, it was not magic reality, a la Marquez, but Indian electoral reality.

The government decided to issue electoral bonds as part of a ‘Money Bill’. This was unconstitutional as electoral bonds are not covered by the definition of a ‘Money Bill’ given in the Constitution.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the sole authority to issue currency (bill of exchange, promissory note or engagement for the payment of money payable to bearer on demand) under Section 31 of the RBI Act, advised against the electoral bond scheme for “encouraging money laundering”.

The RBI was approached four days before the announcement of electoral bonds, “requesting early comments”, not agreement. And, the RBI’s views were overruled by the Finance Ministry saying, “RBI has not understood the proposed mechanism of… for the purpose of keeping the identity of the donor secret…”, and that “We may go ahead… because… the Finance Bill was already printed.” Convincing argument?

The Election Commission of India (ECI), when asked for its reaction to the proposed scheme, responded that “it will have a serious impact on transparency aspect of political finance/funding of political parties… This is a retrograde step as far as transparency of donations is concerned.” It further clarified that this would “lead to increased use of black money for political funding through shell companies” as “this opens up the possibility of shell companies being set up solely for the purpose of making donations to political parties with no other business of consequence having disbursable profits.”

And yet, after a series of meetings, a Secretary in the Finance Ministry recorded on file that “it is my understanding that the (Election) Commission was reasonably satisfied about the electoral bonds being a fair and more transparent system of political donations” although there is nothing on record to show that the claim was true. On the contrary, the ECI filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in March 2019 saying that electoral bonds, in their current form, should be scrapped.

What is instead on record, however, is a question asked by a member of the Rajya Sabha, Mohammad Nadimul Haque, in the Winter Session of Parliament: “Had the Election Commission of India raised concerns about electoral bonds?” The Minister of State for Finance, P Radhakrishnan, flatly replied that the government had not received “any concerns from the Election Commission on the issue of electoral bearer bonds”.

As notified, the funding window was to be opened only four times a year, ten-day window each time but “an additional period of 30 days (could be allowed) in the year of General Elections to the House of People.” Despite this clear stipulation of “General Election to the House of People”, the Prime Minister’s Office ordered that the scheme be opened for state assembly elections, breaking a rule that it had made itself, soon to be followed by another rule broken by the Finance Ministry when it ordered the SBI to encash bonds worth Rs 10 crore, which had already expired crossing the 15-day validity period.

The anonymity of the donor of electoral bond was protected in so far as the SBI is the only bank authorised to sell electoral bonds and that it will collect “Know Your Customer” (KYC) particulars of the buyers of electoral bonds, but not share this information with anyone unless demanded by a court order.

The announcement of the schedule for elections for five state assemblies was a much anticipated event. What attracted attention of some observers was the inclusion of requirements for disclosure of criminal antecedents by candidate and political parties who sponsor them. A tweet by someone with over 8,500 followers is representative:

“Candidates with criminal antecedents will have to publish their crime records in newspapers etc. 3 times before the poll: CEC

Also, political parties will have to give a list of candidates with criminal antecedents in home page of their websites. Also, reasons of their selection.”

This appears at pages 21 to 24 of the 92-page press note issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI) and is numbered as items 21 and 22. As the press note correctly mentions, this is in compliance of three judgements/orders of the Supreme Court on February 16, 2018, September 25, 2018 and August 10, 2021. These cases were filed in 2011, 2015 and 2018.

The origins

This long and continuing saga started with the filing of a PIL by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) in the Delhi high court in 1999, requesting that candidates contesting elections to parliament and state assemblies who have criminal cases pending against them be required to disclose these while filing their nomination papers. The high court, in a judgement given on November 2, 2000, accepted the request and ordered that all candidates contesting MP and MLA elections will be required to file a sworn affidavit as a necessary part of their nomination papers, declaring criminal cases pending against them.

The high court’s decision seemed unacceptable to the government of the day, so the Union of India filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the high court’s judgment in the Supreme Court. Several political parties became interveners to the case in support the government, claiming that it was a legislative matter and the judiciary has no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. The Supreme Court in its judgment delivered on May 2, 2002 upheld the high court judgment, saying:

“Cumulative reading of plethora of decisions of this Court as referred to, it is clear that if the field meant for legislature and executive is left unoccupied detrimental to the public interest, this Court would have ample jurisdiction under Article 32 read with Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution to issue necessary directions to the Executive to subserve public interest.”

Even this was not acceptable to the political establishment. An all-party meeting was held in which it was decided that the high court and Supreme Court judgments will not be allowed to be implemented and the Representation of the People Act (RP Act) will be amended, in that very session of parliament, for this purpose. A draft Bill for this was prepared but could not be introduced in the parliament because of disruptions and then an adjournment due to what came to be known as the petrol pump scam. The cabinet then decided to promulgate an ordinance to achieve the same purpose. The ordinance was sent to the president for signature, but the president returned the ordinance without signing it. The cabinet then sent it to the president again, exactly in the same form, and following the established convention, the president had to sign it. The RP Act, thus, stood amended and the Supreme Court judgment was rendered ineffective.

Three PILs were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment of the RP Act. The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment delivered on March 13, 2003, declared that the amendment of the RP Act “does not pass the test of constitutionality” and “has resulted in the violation of guarantee under Article 19(1)(a)”. Article 19(1)(a) is the Fundamental Right “to freedom of speech and expression”.

This is how criminal antecedents of candidates contesting elections to parliament and state assemblies came to be known to voters.

How it evolved further

The next stage in this saga began in 2011, when a civil society organisation called Public Interest Foundation filed another PIL in the Supreme Court seeking decriminalisation of politics and requesting the Supreme Court to “(a) lay down appropriate guidelines/ framework to ensure that those charged with serious criminal offences are unable to enter the political arena by contesting elections; and (b) lay down a time frame of six months during which trial of such persons are concluded in a time bound manner;” among some other requests.

The Supreme Court issued an order on March 10, 2014, directing that cases against MPs and MLAs be tried “as speedily and expeditiously as may be possible and in no case later than one year from the date of the framing of charge(s)”.

In the meanwhile, a PIL filed in 2005 came to be decided on August 27, 2014. The case was Manoj Narula vs Union Of India. It was filed “assailing the appointment of some of the original respondents as Ministers to the Council of Ministers of Union of India despite their involvement in serious and heinous crimes”. Originally, the PIL was heard by a three-judge bench headed by the then chief justice, and on March 24, 2006, it was decided that “Having regard to the magnitude of the problem and its vital importance, it is but proper that the petition is heard by a Bench of five Judges.”

Thus, it is the five-judge bench that gave the judgment in August 2014. The majority judgment of three judges left it “to the wisdom of the Prime Minister”, while saying that the prime minister “can always be legitimately expected (to) consider not choosing a person with criminal antecedents against whom charges have been framed for heinous or serious criminal offences or charges of corruption to become a Minister of the Council of Ministers”, and also adding that it “is the constitutional expectation from the Prime Minister”.

There were two other separate but concurring judgments in which one of the judges considered it “…the prophetic duty of this Court to remind the key duty holders about their role in working the Constitution,” and the advice given was that “the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of the State, …will be well advised to consider avoiding any person in the Council of Ministers, against whom charges have been framed by a criminal court in respect of offences involving moral turpitude and also offences specifically referred to in Chapter III of The Representation of the People Act, 1951”.

Now, to the current situation

Then came an important judgment on September 25, 2018, again in a Public Interest Foundation case. There are two important features of this judgment. One, despite overwhelming evidence, the court shied away from saying that candidates who had criminal cases pending against them for some specified heinous offences be barred from contesting elections, subject to some safeguards, and two, this was the judgment that put the system on the path of candidates and political parties advertising pending criminal cases. Both these issues have been commented on in detail in The Wire on September 25, 2018, and on October 12, 2018.

To reiterate, it was pointed out, especially in the piece on October 12, 2018, that (a) the directions requiring candidates and parties putting out advertisements in newspaper disclosing pending criminal case were not likely to be of much help, and (b) the only way to reduce, if not eliminate, criminals getting into legislatures was to bar such people from contesting elections, which the Court declined to do citing jurisdictional issues. In the process it ignored its own ruling of 2002 wherein it said:

“Cumulative reading of plethora of decisions of this Court as referred to, it is clear that if the field meant for legislature and executive is left unoccupied detrimental to the public interest, this Court would have ample jurisdiction under Article 32 read with Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution to issue necessary directions to the Executive to sub-serve public interest.”

While stopping short of doing what actually requires to be done, the judgment seems to have a lot faith in its own wishes and desires. Following are just two samples of its expectations:

“117. These directions ought to be implemented in true spirit and right earnestness in a bid to strengthen the democratic set-up. There may be certain gaps or lacunae in a law or legislative enactment which can definitely be addressed by the legislature if it is backed by the proper intent, strong resolve and determined will of right-thinking minds to ameliorate the situation. It must also be borne in mind that the law cannot always be found fault with for the lack of its stringent implementation by the concerned authorities. Therefore, it is the solemn responsibility of all concerned to enforce the law as well as the directions laid down by this Court from time to time in order to infuse the culture of purity in politics and in democracy and foster and nurture an informed citizenry, for ultimately it is the citizenry which decides the fate and course of politics in a nation and thereby ensures that ―”we shall be governed no better than we deserve”, and thus, complete information about the criminal antecedents of the candidates forms the bedrock of wise decision-making and informed choice by the citizenry. Be it clearly stated that informed choice is the cornerstone to have a pure and strong democracy” (Emphases added).

“118. We have issued the aforesaid directions with immense anguish, for the Election Commission cannot deny a candidate to contest on the symbol of a party. A time has come that the Parliament must make law to ensure that persons facing serious criminal cases do not enter into the political stream. It is one thing to take cover under the presumption of innocence of the accused but it is equally imperative that persons who enter public life and participate in law making should be above any kind of serious criminal allegation. It is true that false cases are foisted on prospective candidates, but the same can be addressed by the Parliament through appropriate legislation. The nation eagerly waits for such legislation, for the society has a legitimate expectation to be governed by proper constitutional governance. The voters cry for systematic sustenance of constitutionalism. The country feels agonized when money and muscle power become the supreme power. Substantial efforts have to be undertaken to cleanse the polluted stream of politics by prohibiting people with criminal antecedents so that they do not even conceive of the idea of entering into politics. They should be kept at bay” (Emphases added).

After expressing all its hopes and aspirations, the judgement ends on a pious note:

“We are sure, the law-making wing of the democracy of this country will take it upon itself to cure the malignancy. We say so as such a malignancy is not incurable. It only depends upon the time and stage when one starts treating it; the sooner the better, before it becomes fatal to democracy. Thus, we part.”

Reality unfolds

The denouement of all the pious hopes started on November 27, 2018, when a contempt petition was filed by one Rambabu Singh Thakur against the then chief election commissioner and several others raising “grave issues regarding the criminalisation of politics in India” and bringing to the attention of the court “a disregard of the directions of a Constitution Bench of this Court in” the judgment on September 25, 2018.

The judgment in this case was announced on February 13, 2020, wherein the court noted that “the political parties offer no explanation as to why candidates with pending criminal cases are selected as candidates in the first place” and issued detailed directions on the way (a) political parties, giving tickets to candidates with criminal cases pending against them, should give reasons for giving tickets to such persons; (b) how parties should publish these explanations in the mass media, including social media; and most importantly, (c) ) “the reasons as to selection shall be with reference to the qualifications, achievements and merit of the candidate concerned, and not mere “winnability” at the polls.”

Where are we now?

It fell to a public-spirited advocate practising in Delhi but originally hailing from Nalanda district of Bihar to take this activity forward. Brajesh Singh filed a contempt petition on November 6, 2020, also against the then chief election commissioner and several others, bringing “to the notice of this Court the flouting of its directions given vide Order dated 13.02.2020”. The contempt petition was based on state assembly elections held in October/November 2020. The judgement of this petition came on August 10, 2021. It is quite amazing to see that the court took another significant step forward but refrained from dealing with the issue properly, for which there is only one way, as we shall see a little later.

First the step forward. The court held eight political parties guilty of contempt of court and fined six of those parties Rs 1 lakh each, and the remaining two Rs 5 lakh each. The cause of the contempt was that the parties had given (a) tickets to persons who had criminal cases pending against them, and (b) flimsy and non-convincing reasons for giving tickets to such persons. Parties fined Rs 1 lakh each were Janata Dal United, Rashtriya Janta Dal, Lok Janshakti Party, Indian National Congress, Bharatiya Janata Party, and the Communist Party of India. Parties fined Rs 5 lakh each were the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Nationalist Congress Party.

While fining political parties must be commended, it is worth reflecting on whether the amounts of money levied as fine would (a) have any adverse financial impact on the parties, and (b) the amounts will work as deterrents enough to encourage parties not to indulge in such blatant defiance of the orders of the highest court in the land.

Practicability

While we do commend the court for the act of levying fines on political parties, the practicability of the implementation of the directions of the court, and more importantly, monitoring the implementation, must be given very serious thought. The judgment itself refers to it, almost in passing, when it says that “Arguments have been advanced before us with regard to the practicability of implementation of the direction contained in paragraph 4.4” (Para 30).

Some of the factors that make satisfactory monitoring, even on the part of the Election Commission, extremely difficult, if not impossible, are also described in the piece published in The Wire on October 12, 2018 which has been referred to earlier.

Avoiding the obvious

The following excerpts from the judgment deserve careful reading:

“The nation continues to wait, and is losing patience. Cleansing the polluted stream of politics is obviously not one of the immediate pressing concerns of the legislative branch of government” (Para 17).

“The Constitution Bench therefore observes that though criminalisation in politics is a bitter manifest truth, which is a termite in the citadel of democracy, the Court cannot make law.” (Para 50).

“In paragraph 107, the Constitution Bench recommends that Parliament bring out a strong law whereby it is mandatory for the political parties to revoke membership of persons against whom charges are framed in heinous and grievous offences and not to set-up such persons in elections.” (Para 51).

“No one can deny that the menace of criminalisation in the Indian political system is growing day by day. Also, no one can deny that for maintaining purity of political system, persons with criminal antecedents and who are involved in criminalisation of political system should not be permitted to be the law-makers” (Para 71).

“This Court, time and again, has appealed to the law-makers of the Country to rise to the occasion and take steps for bringing out necessary amendments so that the involvement of persons with criminal antecedents in polity is prohibited. All these appeals have fallen on the deaf ears. The political parties refuse to wake up from deep slumber” (Para 72).

The reader would recall that very similar sentiments were expressed by the court in its judgment of September 25, 2018, mentioned above, including some pious hopes.

The above statements need to be read with or contrasted with the following:

“… The Constitution Bench after elaborately considering the said issue, held that issuing such a direction would amount to entering into the legislative arena and as such, such a direction could not be issued. In our view, in the teeth of the observations made by the Constitution Bench in paragraph 96, though some suggestions made by Shri Viswanathan are laudable, it will not be possible for us to accede to them” (Para 53).

“The only question is, whether this Court can do so by issuing directions which do not have foundation in the statutory provisions” (Para 71).

“However, in view of the constitutional scheme of separation of powers, though we desire that something urgently requires to be done in the matter, our hands are tied and we cannot transgress into the area reserved for the legislative arm of the State. We can only appeal to the conscience of the law-makers and hope that they will wake up soon and carry out a major surgery for weeding out the malignancy of criminalisation in politics” (Para 72).

At the risk of crossing a Lakshman Rekha, it must be said that it is beyond comprehension that a court which can be so sagacious and perceptive as to write that “The political parties refuse to wake up from deep slumber”, is not able to discern that it, itself, seems to be in deep slumber by repeatedly ignoring a settled principle in law “filling in the gap or vacuum in legislation” which has been very well elaborated in a judgment of this very court, of May 2, 2002.

The last word

Finally, to come back to the announcement of the Election Commission of India that we started with. All that the announcement does is to follow exactly what several judgments of the Supreme Court have ordered. It must, however, be noted that all the judgments referred to (a) do not seem to be on a firm footing as far as implementation is concerned; (b) will be very difficult, if not impossible, to implement; and (c) in the light of (a) and (b), do not, and cannot, achieve the objective of at least reducing, if not completely eliminating the adverse impact of criminality on the political and electoral systems in the country.

राजनीति के अपराधीकरण की पृष्ठभूमि को जानने के लिए बैलेट पेपर के जमाने में जाना होगा. तब बहुत से उम्मीदवार मतदाताओं को डराने-धमकाने के लिए बाहुबलियों का इस्तेमाल करते थे. बाहुबली लोगों को डराने-धमकाने के साथ ही मतदान केंद्र पर लोगों से जबरन किसी खास उम्मीदवार के पक्ष में मत भी डलवाया करते थे. पोलिंग बूथ के स्टाफ को भी ये डराकर रखते थे.

He has worked for electoral reforms through the judicial system by filing Public Interest Litigations in the higher judiciary to get relevant laws improved, and on the ground by providing information to voters about the background of candidates contesting elections so that they can make informed choices while voting.

Before founding the ADR, Chhokar — who has a PhD from Louisiana State University, USA — was a  professor of Management and Organisational Behaviour at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. In an interview with RAKESH KUMAR, he shared his thoughts on a variety of issues roiling the country.

“Indian politicians start their legislative careers with a lie — the false spending returns they submit? – Atal Bihari Vajpayee”

Achchhe din (Good days) are here for at least one category of persons in India: Those who contest elections and have pots of money. This good news is derived from a press note issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI) October 21, 2020.

For the record, the press note informs whoever may be interested that the ECI has constituted a two-member committee “to examine the issues concerning expenditure limit for a candidate in view of increase in number of electors and rise in Cost Inflation Index and other factors.”

Why should this be cause for celebration by those who contest elections, and have pots of money? The response to this question requires us to go into some legislative provisions (in simple words, ‘laws’) and some other regulations.

The root of the issue is found in Section 77 (3) of a ‘law’, The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act). This section reads, “The total of the said expenditure shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed.”

‘Laws’, most of the time, cannot be implemented as they are; they need to be operationalised by ‘Rules’ made under a particular ‘law’ by the Government of India. The RP Act was operationalised through The Conduct of Election Rules, 1966.

Rule 90 of the Conduct of Election Rules, ‘Maximum election expenses’ stipulates:

The total of the expenditure … which is incurred or authorized in connection with an election in a State or Union territory … shall not exceed … (an amount given in the accompanying Table).

These limits are specified separately for every state and Union territory and separately for Parliament and state Assemblies.

Since the power to amend the ‘rules’ rests with the Union government (and NOT with the ECI), all that the ECI does is to recommend to the Centre from time to time that the existing limit be increased to a higher amount that the ECI recommends. The central government usually approves the recommendations of the ECI.

This happens almost in every election. For example, the limit of election expenditure at the time of 2009 general elections was Rs 25 lakh for a Parliamentary constituency and Rs 10 lakh for an Assembly constituency in the bigger states.

These limits were subsequently increased and, till recently, were Rs 70 lakh for Lok Sabha and Rs 28 lakhs for state Assembly elections.

As recently as October 20, 2020, the Narendra Modi government has increased both these limits by 10 per cent, making the Lok Sabha limit as Rs 77 lakh and state election expenditure limit Rs 30.6 lakh.

Ostensibly, it is to replace such ad hoc or random increases (because there has never been a decrease in the limits so far) that the ECI has set up the committee. The ‘terms of reference’ of the Committee are:

1. To assess the change in number of electors across the states / Union territories and its bearing on expenditure
2. To assess the change in Cost Inflation Index and its bearing on the pattern of expenditure incurred by the candidates in recent elections
3. To seek views / inputs of political parties and other stakeholders
4. To examine other factors which may have bearings on expenditure
5. To examine any other related issue

To bring in a kind of a logical basis for fixing election expenditure limits is, on the face of it, a laudable exercise. But then why is it that the title of this piece has the word ‘charade’ in it? Let’s see.

Why ‘charade’

To unravel this, we need to understand what purpose are the limits supposed to achieve, and what do they actually achieve.

The ostensible purpose, though not explicitly stated, seems to be to minimise or normalise the impact of money, or big money, on the electoral process. To use a cliché, it is to provide a ‘level playing field’, or at least as level a playing field as possible.

This is so that persons who have humongous amounts of money to spend on elections, do not end up cornering all the seats, and those who have less money do have a more or less equal chance of getting elected.

To achieve this, every candidate contesting elections to Parliament and a state Assembly is required, under Section 77 (1) of the RP Act to:

keep a separate and correct account of all expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorized by him or by his election agent between the date on which he has been nominated and the date of declaration of the result thereof, both dates inclusive.

Further, Section 78(1) of the same Act, requires:

Every contesting candidate at an election (to) … lodge with the District Election Officer … an account of his election expenses … within thirty days from the date of (declaration of the result of the election).

This is required to be submitted as a sworn affidavit. As mentioned above, “The total of the said expenditure shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed.”

If the actual expenditure of any of the elected persons exceeds the permissible limit, that election can be set aside.

The reality

To do a reality check on these election expenditure affidavits, Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) — a civil society group working on electoral and political reforms — analysed the affidavits of 5,743 candidates after the 2009 Lok Sabha elections.

This analysis showed that only four candidates declared expenditure above the then limit of Rs 16 lakh. Thirty candidates had declared that they had spent between 90 and 95 per cent of the limit.

The remaining (5,743-4-30=) 5,719 or 99.58 per cent said they had spent between 45 and 55 per cent of the limit.

Then there is other relevant information. On June 27, 2013, one of the prominent leaders of one of the leading political parties, who became a central minister after the 2014 Lok Sabha election, said in a public meeting that he had spent Rs 8 crores on his 2009 Lok Sabha election.

It is worth recalling that the limit for expenditure for Lok Sabha in 2009 was Rs 25 lakhs. The same person had declared in his sworn affidavit that his actual election expenditure was Rs 19.63 lakh.

With 99.58 per cent of the candidates saying that they had spent 45-55 per cent of the limit, there is a widespread clamour, almost at every election, that the ceiling on expenditure is too low and it should be increased.

A former chief election commissioner, when shown this data, said based on this data, the limit should be decreased and not increased.

To what extent has the election expenditure limit been successful in providing a ‘level playing field’ can be seen from the fact that while the 2004 Lok Sabha had 153 (30 per cent) of MPs who were crorepatis, the number in the 2009 Lok Sabha as 315 (58 per cent).

The 2014 Lok Sabha saw this number go up to 443 (82 per cent). The figure in the 2019 Lok Sabha is 479 (88 per cent).

It should be evident from the above that the limits on election expenditure by candidates does not serve any purpose at all.

Then there is the elephant in the room: There is no limit on the expenditure that political parties can incur during elections!

The only ways to control expenditure on elections and to provide a ‘level-playing field’ to rich and poor candidates alike are to (a) make political parties democratic in their internal functioning and (b) make their finances transparent, by law. How these two will achieve these objectives is another story.

The article was originally published on Down to Earth.

लोकतंत्र में राजनीति और चुनावों में पैसे की भूमिका बढ़ती जा रही है। कई रिपोर्टों में सामने आया कि 2019 के चुनावों में अमरीकी राष्ट्रपति चुनाव से ज्यादा पैसा खर्च हुआ। इससे लोकतंत्र, चुनाव और नागरिकों पर क्या प्रभाव पड़ता है, वह जानने के लिए चुनावों के तीन महत्वपूर्ण घटक मतदाता, राजनीतिक दल और चुनावों में चंदा देने वालों के उद्देश्यों को समझना होगा। मतदाता सुशासन चाहते है। वे चाहते है कि कर के रूप में वे सरकार को जो पैसा देते हैं, उसका उपयोग सरकार नीति निर्माण और उन सेवाओं की बेहतरी के लिए करें।

राजनीतिक दलों का सत्ता में आना ही लक्ष्य होता है। जो लोग चंदा देते है, वे चाहते हैं कि जीतने के बाद उन्हें फायदा मिले। चंदा देने वाले लोग या तो किसी प्रकार की कानूनी जांच से बचे रहने के इरादे से चंदा देते हैं या वे कहते है कि पार्टियों ने उनसे जोर जबरदस्ती से चंदा लिया है। कुछ ही ऐसे है, जो जन कल्याण के कार्यों के लिए पार्टी को चंदा देते है। कुछ प्रतिष्ठित एजेंसियों ने सार्वजनिक स्तर पर जो आंकड़े उपलब्ध करवाए हैं, उनसे ज्ञात होता हैं कि 2019 के लोकसभा चुनावों में 50 हजार करोड़ रूपए से ज्यादा खर्चा हुआ था। सवाल है कि ये पैसा आता कहां से है ? राष्ट्रिय दलों द्वारा आधिकारिक तौर पर घोषित आय का आकलन करें तो पाएंगे कि 2004 से लेकर 2019 के बीच सभी राजनीतिक दलों की कुल आय 11 हजार करोड़ रूपए ही थी, फिर बाकि खर्च कैसे मैनेज हुआ ? राजनीतिक पार्टियां सिर्फ और सिर्फ अगले चुनाव के लिए चंदा जुटाने में लगी रहती हैं।

मौजूदा स्थिति को तीन चरणों में समझा जा सकता है। पहला, राजनीतिक दलों द्वारा बताए गए चंदा उगाही के आंकड़ों में वृद्धि देखी गई। 2013-14 के आम चुनाव से पहले यह राशि 1,500 करोड़ से थोड़ी ज्यादा थी। 2018-19  तक ये 6,400 करोड़ हो गई। कुछ पैसा अघोषित भी हो सकता है। दूसरा, लोकसभा में आपराधिक पृष्ठभूमि के सांसदों की संख्या 2009 की 21 से 2019 में 43 फीसदी हो गई। तीसरा, आपराधिक रिकॉर्ड वाले धनी उम्मीदवारों के चुनाव जीतने की संभावना मध्यमवर्गीय ईमानदार उम्मीदवारों के मुकाबले ज्यादा होती है।

अन्य देशों में राजनीतिक दलों की फंडिंग को लेकर अधिक पारदर्शिता होती है। देश के कुछ कॉर्पोरेट हाउस अक्सर जांच के घेरे में रहते है और वे राजनीतिक पार्टियों के भी करीबी हैं। ऐसे आरोप भी लगते है कि पार्टियां इन व्यावसायिक घरानों को फायदा पहुंचाती है। चूंकि पुलिस और सीबीआई राजनीतिक दलों के प्रभाव में होते है। इसलिए दोषियों के खिलाफ कार्रवाई होने की संभावना भी नगण्य रह जाती है। इस सम्पूर्ण ‘व्यवस्था’ में लोक कल्याण की नीतियां और बजट आवंटन भी प्रभावित होता है। सामाजिक क्षेत्र के व्यय में कटौती हो जाती है। इस बीच, ब्याज दरों में कटौती और आयकर में छूट संबंधी उपायों का फायदा भी कॉर्पोरेट घरानों को मिलता है। मान लीजिए, एक सेवानिवृत व्यक्ति ने यदि बचत के लिए फिक्स डिपोजिट करवा रखा है, तो ब्याज दर कम होने से उसका अच्छा खासा नुकसान हो जाएगा। दूसरी ओर कर्ज में डूबे व्यावसायिक घरानों को ब्याज दर कम होते ही लाखों का फायदा हो सकता है।

पिछले 15 वर्षों से राजनीतिक दलों की भरसक कोशिश रही है कि मतदाताओं को चुनावी फंडिंग के बारे में पता न चले। चुनावी बॉन्ड इसी कोशिश का व्यापक रूप है। स्वस्थ लोकतंत्र का तकाजा है कि राजनीतिक दल स्वत: प्रेरणा से अपनी आय और संपत्ति का सही ब्यौरा सार्वजनिक करें और विश्व के समक्ष मिसाल कायम करें।

2014 के लोक सभा चुनाव में एडीआर द्वारा उम्मीदवारों के हलफनामों के विश्लेषण के अध्ययन से यह ज्ञात हुआ कि 113 सांसदों की संपत्ति में सौ गुणा, 26 सांसदों की संपत्ति में पांच सौ गुणा वृद्धि हुई है। इनमें 113 सांसदों ने अपना पेशा बतौर समाज सेवा, राजनीति एवं सामाजिक कार्य बताया था। आश्रितों में आठ की पत्नियां गृहिणी थी, लेकिन उनकी संपत्ति करोड़ों में थी। जाहिर है ये सभी आय के स्रोत नहीं हो सकते है। बिहार इलेक्शन वॉच के अध्ययन का भी हवाला दिया जा सकता है कि पिछले विधानसभा में निर्वाचित विधायकों की संपत्ति से उनके आश्रितों की संपत्ति पचास प्रतिशत से अधिक थी। 2015 के विधानसभा में यह भी देखने को मिला कि 43 विधानसभा सदस्यों की पत्नियों की संपत्ति में पचास प्रतिशत से अधिक की वृद्धि देखी गयी। एक विधायक की संपत्ति दो लाख थी वही उनके आश्रित एक करोड़ के स्वामी थे। यानी आश्रितों की संपत्ति में 97.87 प्रतिशत की वृद्धि देखी गई। इस क्रम में 43 ऐसे माननीय है जिनकी संपत्ति अपने आश्रितों से भी कम है यानी समाज सेवा के नाम पर राजनीति कर रहे विधानसभा सदस्यों को अपने आश्रितों पर ही निर्भर रहना पड़ता है। याचिका कर्ता का यह कहना है कि अब जनता को अपने प्रतिनिधियों को पकड़ना आसान हो जाएगा कि उनकी संपत्ति पिछले कुछ सालों में कितनी बढ़ गई है और उसके आय के जायज स्रोत क्या है ? मतदाताओं को यह जानने का अधिकार है कि आखिर इनकी संपत्ति दिन – दूनी रात चौगुनी कैसे बढ़ रही है। अदालत के आदेश के तहत उम्मीदवारों को न सिर्फ अपनी आय के स्रोत बताने होंगे बल्कि अपनी पत्नी, बेटा, बहु, बेटी दामाद की आय के साथ उनके स्रोत की भी घोषणा करनी होगी।  सर्वविदित है कि बेहिसाब संपत्ति की घोषणा करने के साथ ही यह गोपनीय रहा करता था कि उनकी बेहिसाब संपत्ति का आखिर स्रोत क्या है ? गौर करने वाली बात है कि कमोबेश चुनावों में सभी उम्मीदवारों के द्वारा समाज सेवा या राजनीति को बतौर पेशा बताया जाता है। आखिर राजनीति या समाज सेवा कोई पेशा नहीं होता तो फिर उनकी अकूत संपत्ति का राज आमलोगों को समझ में नहीं आ पाता है ? किसी भी सांसद या विधायक के आय से अधिक संपत्ति माफिया राज को रास्ता माना जाता है। जिसका असर राजनेताओं के भ्रष्टाचार पर पड़ता है।

ऐसा देखा जा रहा है कि अपने परिजनों के नाम पर ऐसे राजनेता कई पीढ़ियों के लिए बेहिसाब संपत्ति बना लेते है वही दूसरी ओर गरीब जनता की सेहत में सालों कोई परिवर्तन नहीं आ पाता। इन माननीयों की संपत्ति और आय के अंर्तसंबन्धों को समझने के लिए 2015 बिहार विधानसभा चुनाव में 160 ऐसे उम्मीदवारों की आय का विश्लेषण किया गया जिनकी 2010 में संपत्ति 84.41 लाख थी, लेकिन 2015 में उनकी संपत्ति में औसतन 199 प्रतिशत वृद्धि देखी गयी यानि औसतन 2.57 लाख। इन पांच सालों में 1.71 करोड़ वृद्धि हुई। इनमें पांच ऐसे नाम है जिनकी संपत्ति 553 प्रतिशत, 480 प्रतिशत, 354 प्रतिशत, 279 प्रतिशत और 210 प्रतिशत तक वृद्धि देखी गयी। विधानसभा के साथ लोकसभा, राज्य सभा एवं प्रदेश के सर्वोच्च पदों पर आसीन राजनेताओं की स्थिति कमोबेश समान ही देखी गयी है।

मूल रूप से प्रभात खबर में प्रकाशित!