The group’s feeling is that “the right to vote is being taken away from the citizen and given to the EVM machine.” Following the 2019Parliamentary election, several CSOs highlighted discrepancies in 347 seats between the number of votes cast and the number of votes counted, raising concerns that millions of votes were missed or miscounted. In six seats, the discrepancy in votes was higher than the winning margin. But no clarification was received from the ECI, and the matter is now pending in the Supreme Court in a PIL. Hence, the public demand to “count every vote and make every vote count.”

With the introduction of the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) in all EVMs, there are now two votes: one recorded in the EVM memory and one printed by the VVPAT. Rule 56D(4)(b) of the Conduct of Election (Amendment) Rules, 2013, says that, in case of a dispute, the VVPAT slip will be the real vote as per Section 61A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, and not the electronic memory in the EVM. Despite this rule, critics point out that ECI has been refusing to count 100% of VVPAT slips and keeps on counting only the EVM memory, which is not the real vote. They allege that ECI is defending its action and has filed a false affidavit in the Supreme Court.

The group recognises that purely EVM-based voting and counting does not comply with ‘Democracy Principles’ which require that each voter be able to verify that his or her vote is “cast as intended, recorded as cast, and counted as recorded.” A panel of national and international experts testified before the Citizens Commission on Elections (CCE), which is chaired by former Supreme Court Justice Madan B Lokur. Experts sought clarification on seventeen critical points on EVM voting and counting. Still, there has been no acknowledgement, let alone any response, from the ECI.

The group is therefore making the following recommendations: EVMs cannot be assumed to be tamper-proof. A voter should be able to approve a VVPAT printout before the vote is finally cast. The security of the VVPAT slips and the EVM machines after polling and before counting and auditing must be ensured in a verifiable manner. The audit should be based on manual counting of all the VVPAT slips to improve voter confidence.

Money Power
The problem of free and fair elections would not be solved merely by counting the VVPATs instead of the EVMs. The group feels that the “fast-rising economic oligarchy in the country, threatening India as a welfare state, is the direct fallout of this extreme criminal and money power in elections, which is the fountainhead of all corruption in the country.” It compromises the integrity of democracy in multiple ways: it creates barriers for ordinary citizens to enter politics; excludes honest candidates and parties; leads to corruption and big money controlling the policy-making power of the state, leading to “wasteful, inefficient, and anti-democratic directions and exacerbation of polarisation.”

The government, using the Money Bill route to bypass Rajya Sabha, introduced electoral bonds, which have increased the opaqueness of elections and the role of big money in electoral politics. Corporate loans are being wiped off in return for corporate funding of the party in power. As is evident in the happenings in several states, money is being used to alter the electoral mandate given by people by engineering resignations and defections of MLAs. As a result, the group demands that the Electoral Bonds Scheme be terminated in its current form immediately. Details of donations to political parties, including amounts and names of donors, should be in the public domain.

Media Misuse
The group accuses ECI of not taking action on the many media violations in the past elections, despite several guidelines and codes. ECI failed to curb fake news online; procrastination, silence, and inaction characterised ECI’s responses, even to serious violations of the Model Code of Conduct and media code.
The aim of the group’s campaign is to involve civil society groups in Karnataka before the elections to create voter awareness on the dangers being faced by the nation’s democracy through the 3Ms of machine, money, and media; check the accuracy of electoral rolls; prepare citizens’ manifestos that make the above demands on political parties; enhance people’s ability to vote in an informed way by disseminating information about candidates’ backgrounds; understand the ways in which social and other media are creating polarisation through hate-filled texts, posts, and tweets; and demand that the ECI take swift and exemplary action against offenders; such efforts will be the only way to ensure free and fair elections and stem the steep anti-democratic slide the country is currently undergoing.
(The writer of this article, Kathyayini Chamaraj, is the State Coordinator of Karnataka Election Watch (ADR) and an Executive Trustee of CIVIC-Bangalore.)

This article was originally published in Deccan Herald.

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.

ताकतवर ही सबसे भ्रष्ट …!

हमारे यहां सबसे शक्तिशाली समूह राजनीतिज्ञों का है। भ्रष्टाचार जैसी बीमारी को दूर करने का काम केवल राजनैतिक इच्छाशक्ति से ही हो सकता है। लेकिन सवाल यह है कि आखिर हमारा राजनीतिक सिस्टम इसमें पहल क्यों नहीं करता? इसका जवाब इन आंकड़ों में है : हमारे यहां दागी सांसदों की संख्या जहां 2004 में 43 प्रतिशत थी, वहीं यह 2019 में बढ़कर 43 फीसदी हो गई। इनमें भी सबसे ज्यादा संख्या सत्ताधारी पार्टी में है। हाल ही में बिहार में हुए चुनाव में दागी विधायकों की संख्या में 10 फीसदी की बढ़ोतरी हुई है। 2015 में जहां चुने हुए विधायकों में से 58 फीसदी पर आपराधिक मामले दर्ज थे, वहीं 2020 में यह संख्या बढ़कर 68 फीसदी हो गई। हमारे जनप्रतिनिधियों के दागी होने का मतलब यही है कि जब उनका दामन साफ नहीं होगा तो वे भ्रष्टाचार को दूर करने का प्रयास क्यों करेंगे, क्योंकि व्यवस्था में भ्रष्टाचार ही इन्हें अपने कारनामों को ढंकने मंे मदद करता है।

तो नागरिक क्या कर सकते हैं?

“ग्लोबल करप्शन बैरोमीटर’ रिपोर्ट कहती हैं कि हमारे यहां 46 फीसदी लोगों ने अपने संपर्कों के जरिए अपने काम करवाए। इनमें से अधिकांश काम छोटे-बड़े नेताओं के जरिए ही करवाए जाते हैं। अगर ये नेता मदद नहीं करते तो उस काम के लिए उन्हें रिश्वत देनी पड़ती। यानी यहां लोगों को यह समझने की जरूरत है कि राजनीतिज्ञ इतने शक्तिशाली हैं कि अगर वे चाहें तो वे पूरे सिस्टम को बदल सकते हैं। अब यह आम नागरिकों की जिम्मेदारी है कि वे नेता ही ऐसे चुनेें जिनकी ईमानदारी और निष्ठा तमाम सवालों से परे हो। अगर राजनीति ईमानदार होगी तो नौकरशाही को अपने आप ईमानदार होना होगा। शीर्ष नौकरशाह जब ईमानदार होंगे तो निचले स्तर पर कार्य करने वाले कर्मचारी भ्रष्टाचार करने का साहस नहीं कर पाएंगे। जब नेता ईमानदार होगा, अफसर ईमानदार होंगे, कर्मचारी ईमानदार होंगे तो आम लोगों में भी वे लोग जो अपने गलत काम भी पैसे देकर या जुगाड़ से करवा लेते हैं, उनके लिए यह सबकुछ इतना आसान नहीं रह जाएगा।

लेकिन यह होगा कैसे?

जनता ईमानदार नेता चुनें, यह कहना आसान है, लेकिन करना मुश्किल। इसके लिए हमें कुछ बुनियादी बदलाव करने होंगे। इलेक्टोरल बॉड्स को बंद करके राजनीतिक दलों को होने वाली फंडिंग में पारदर्शिता लानी होगी। आपराधिक रिकॉर्ड वाले लागों को चुनाव का टिकट देने पर रोक लगानी होगी और किसी दागी को टिकट देने पर संबंधित राजनीतिक दल के मुखिया को जिम्मेदार ठहराना होगा। इसके लिए सिविल सोसाइटी का दबाव बनाना होगा और जब भी जरूरत हो, कोर्ट का दरवाजा खटखटाने से भी नहीं पीछे नहीं रहना होगा। इसके लिए मीडिया को भी अहम भूमिका निभानी होगी।

कहां है समस्या?

- कुछ साल पहले एक जाने-माने राजनेता ने कहा था कि चुनावी फंडिंग ही भ्रष्टाचार की सबसे बड़ी गंगोत्री है। इससे निबटने के लिए सरकार इलेक्टोरल बॉन्ड्स लेकर आई, लेकिन इसने तो चुनावी फंडिंग को और भी अस्पष्ट और अपारदर्शी बना दिया है। दरअसल, हमारे राजनीतिज्ञ राजनीतिक फंडिंग में पारदर्शिता बिल्कुल नहीं चाहते। यह बात कुछ कारपोरेट्स हाउसेस को भी रास आती है, क्योंकि इससे वे बड़ी आसानी से राजनीतिक दलों को पैसा दे देते हैं और चुनावों के बाद सरकार से बेजा फायदा उठाते हैं।

- भ्रष्टाचार से निबटने के लिए हमें प्रभावी सीबीआई, सीवीसी और एंटी करप्शन ब्यूरो चाहिए। लेकिन इन सभी विभागों का मूल संगठन यानी पुलिस के बारे में आम धारणा यही है कि यह सबसे भ्रष्ट विभाग है। इसलिए हम पुलिस से और प्रकारांतर में इन तमाम संगठनों से यह उम्मीद नहीं कर सकते कि ये भ्रष्टाचार को मिटाने में कारगर रहेंगे, जब तक कि इनके पीछे राजनीतिक इच्छाशक्ति नहीं होगी।

- सरकारी सेवकों को भी जवाबदेह नहीं बनाया गया है। सरकारी शिक्षक स्कूल नहीं जाते हैं या जाते हैं तो पढ़ाते नहीं। डॉक्टर सरकारी हास्पिटल या प्राथमिक स्वास्थ्य केंद्र नहीं जाते। अस्पतालों में दवाइयां नहीं मिलती। सड़के, जलापूर्ति, बिजली और अन्य बुनियादी सुविधाओं की स्थिति अक्सर खराब मिलती है। और दुर्भाग्य से किसी को भी खराब काम करने या जिम्मेदारी न निभाने पर नौकरी से नहीं निकाला जाता। समस्या यह है कि अच्छा काम करने वाले को पुरस्कार भी नहीं मिलता। तो अच्छा काम करने की प्रेरणा भी नहीं मिलती।

केरल और बिहार के सबक …

एक रिपोर्ट के अनुसर केरल में केवल 10 फीसदी नागरिकों को अपने काम करवाने के लिए रिश्वत देनी पड़ी, जबकि बिहार में 75 फीसदी लोगों को। आखिर ऐसा क्यों है, इसको लेकर तो व्यापक अध्ययन की जरूरत है, लेकिन इसमें कहीं न कहीं शिक्षा और साक्षरता का योगदान तो नजर आता ही है। केरल भारत का सबसे साक्षर प्रदेश है, जबकि बिहार का नाम साक्षरता के मामले में नीचे से शीर्ष के राज्यों में शुमार होता है।

Originally published in Dainik Bhaskar.

“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.

The Indian electoral rolls are once again in the news. The government wants to prepare a single roll for national, state and local elections to municipalities and panchayats. Currently, many states have separate rolls. One is maintained by the Central Election Commission (CEC) and used for the Lok Sabha and state assembly elections; the other is maintained by the respective State Election Commissions (SECs) and used for local elections. The issue has been discussed for a few decades; some Commissions have recommended it; a few states have already done it.

In principle, this is a good idea. The problem lies in the details. Electoral rolls of either type are not fully correct. There are errors of commission, when names that should not be there are included; there are errors of omission, where names are missing. It is impossible to estimate this, but pilot field surveys show that in urban areas these errors could be quite large. Both the CEC and SECs are constantly working on removing these errors and some progress has been made.

The recent pandemic has thrown up yet another variable to contend with, the millions of migrants. Where do they vote? Typically, elections are held in the summer when schools are closed. This is also the peak time for seasonal migration, for lack of agricultural work at this time of year. There are a large number of students who study in other cities and towns. There is also a sizeable white-collar urban migrant population, who go to other places for jobs. There has been some discussion of remote voting for all these groups. The administrative arrangements need to be worked out. However, voter ID fraud cannot be ignored, but it is beyond the issue of single electoral rolls.

The stated purpose of this exercise is to hold simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha, state assemblies and local elections. There is some election or the other almost every year in some part of the country, including by-elections, when seats fall vacant on the death of a representative or when s/he defects. Many states do not hold local elections at all for many years. Also, what do we do if a government falls? Several practical, legal and constitutional issues have to be sorted out.

Ignoring all this, the issue of single electoral rolls can still be considered. Most voters are not concerned about it as long as their name is included. Whether they actually vote on the day is another matter. There are two issues that are linked to this. One is the use of technology, especially the biometric ID Aadhaar, or something similar. The other is the CAA and NRC issue. Will people with voter IDs and names on electoral rolls be left out of the NRC register? Or vice versa? Will this end up in courts with aggrieved persons and groups asking for justice? Privacy and data security are also important. The information sits on the cloud and can potentially be hacked. Could an enemy country or some group with vested interests use this to their advantage? We already hear reports of this in other countries.

We also need to ask a simple question. The country is still facing massive health and economic upheavals due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Earlier, we had groups of people protesting for or against the CAA and NRC. In this situation, even if we decide that single voter rolls are worth it, we need to think whether this is the right time. Ironing out all the problems, some of which have been outlined earlier, will take time, money and effort. Implementation glitches may lead to legal challenges or public protests. At a national level, some legal or even constitutional changes may be necessary to persuade states to mandatorily follow a common electoral roll. Simultaneous elections will require political management. Is this the most pressing issue of the day? Aren’t resources of time, money and the government bureaucracy better utilised trying to shepherd the nation out of the biggest crisis we face today?

The article was originally published in India Today.

2019 के लोक सभा में एक तिहाई सीटों पर आठ लाख से अधिक वोट मिले। सबसे अधिक जहानाबाद में 27 हज़ार 683 बार नोटा बटन दबा जहानाबाद में। ‘नोटा’ ने जहानाबाद के चुनावी नतीजों को प्रभावित किया। इस सीट पर हार जीत का अंतर महज 1751 वोटों का है, जबकि यहाँ नोटा को 27 हज़ार 683 मत मिले। देश भर में लोक सभा की कई सीटें ऐसी रही जहां पर जीत का अंतर नोटा को मिले वोटों से भी कम रहा। करीब दो दर्जन से ज्यादा सीटों पर प्रत्याशियों को नोटा की वजह से हार झेलनी पड़ी। भारत 2014 से भारत में नोटा को अपनाया गया। पहली बार 15 लाख से ज्यादा वोट नोटा को आया था। 16 वीं बिहार विधानसभा के लिए चुनाव में नोटा का जबरदस्त प्रभाव देखा गया। इसने 23 सीटों पर सीधे तौर पर परिणाम को प्रभावित किया। इन 23 सीटों पर जितने मतों के अंतर से जीत हासिल हुई। उससे कही अधिक नोटा के पक्ष में बटन दबे। यह चुनाव इस मायनों में भी रहा क्योंकि मतदाताओं  ने कई पार्टियों की तुलना में नोटा को ज्यादा वोट दिया।

नोटा के तहत होना यह चाहिए कि नोटा को यदि चुनाव में खड़े उम्मीदवारों में यदि सबसे अधिक मत नोटा को मिले तो वह चुनाव रद्द हो जाना चाहिए। उसके बाद पुनः चुनाव करवाए जाने चाहिए जिसमें पूर्व में खड़े उम्मीदवारों को चुनाव लड़ने की अनुमति नहीं मिलनी चाहिए। यानि पुनः नये उम्मीदवारों के साथ पुनर्मतदान कराये जाने चाहिए। नोटा भारत में नकारात्मक फीडबैक देने का काम करने लगा है, अब कुछ राजनैतिक दलों के प्रतिनिधि भी नोटा को लेकर नकारात्मक माहौल बनाने में लगे हुए है या इसकी प्रासंगिकता पर सवाल खड़े कर रहे है जो बिलकुल ही लोकतंत्र की अवधारणाओं की विरुद्ध है। हाल में महाराष्ट्र और हरियाणा स्टेट इलेक्शन कमीशन की पहलकदमी से नोटा के प्रति भरोसा जगा है। 6 नवंबर – 2018 को महाराष्ट्र में स्टेट इलेक्शन कमीशन ने एक ऑर्डर पास किया है कि नोटा को यदि बहुमत मिल जाता है तो पुनर्मतदान कराया जाएगा। 22 नवंबर – 18 को हरियाणा स्टेट इलेक्शन कमीशन ने भी यही निर्णय लिया। इसकी एक वजह थी कि महाराष्ट्र के स्थानीय निकाय चुनाव में कई ऐसी सीटें थी जिसमें नोटा को बहुमत मिला था। पुणे के एक पंचायत में नोटा को 85 प्रतिशत वोट मिल गया। यही ऑर्डर यदि देश व्यापी हो जाए तो उम्मीद है देश में नोटा की प्रासंगिकता बढ़ जाएगी और वोट बहिष्कार की धारा को भी मुकाम मिल जाएगा।

मूल रूप से प्रभात खबर में प्रकाशित

The Supreme Court this week came down heavily on criminalisation of politics. It asked political parties to explain why they need to give tickets to people with criminal backgrounds. The court also asked them to publicise widely, through websites and social media, the impressive “résumé” of these criminal elements. Let the voters know. The judges also asked whether winnability alone counts in ticket giving, and should parties not be doing something to clean the polity. The latest order is actually a reiteration of a similar one passed in 2018, asking parties to give wide publicity to criminally tainted candidates through newspapers. Alas, the top court stopped short of disqualifying tainted candidates. There is no law in the land that prevents criminally charged persons from standing for elections. In the absence of such a law, which seems unlikely to be passed by Parliament, the court could step in, and put a disqualification criteria.

The right to stand for elections is not a fundamental right. So if we put some restriction on who can and cannot stand, it is not like we are suppressing their freedom of speech or right to livelihood. All we have is a 1951law on who is qualified to stand for elections to Parliament and assemblies. That law states a minimum age requirement, and that you must not be convicted of certain crimes (typically those that attract minimum two years of jail). But since our judicial system works slowly, and a conviction in a lower court can be appealed in a higher court, and the process can continue ad infinitum, technically you are innocent until proven guilty by the highest authority. So this law is not able to prevent any criminally tainted person from standing for elections. The unfortunate trend is that in the past two decades the number of criminally tainted elected lawmakers has increased. In 2004, 24 per cent of MPs had pending criminal cases. This went up to 30 per cent in 2009, to 34 in 2014 and is now a whopping 43 per cent in the current Lok Sabha. The upward trend is seen in many assemblies as well. The stats are dismal and depressing.

But there is a predictable howl from politicians. They say most of these cases are frivolous or false charges. And that the ruling party often resorts to filing cases against leaders of the opposition. And the cycle continues with tit for tat. It is as if we have widespread practice of the politics of vendetta. If that is so, then it is the parties themselves that can put a stop to it. Moreover, if indeed a person is innocent and reeling under false charges, then he or she can clear their name in the court of law, get acquitted and then stand for election. Just wait till your name gets cleared. Maybe institute a fast track court for such cases. Surely a nation of more than a billion people should be able to find a few thousand clean, untainted candidates? But there seems to be no progress on this front, as criminalisation just keeps getting worse. In fact in nearly 40 per cent of the constituencies, there are three or more tainted candidates. So voters have no choice but to vote for a criminal candidate. That’s why we need an activist Supreme Court that can introduce a disqualification clause. At least those charged with heinous crimes such as murder, rape, kidnap and dacoity should be prohibited. Some states like Rajasthan tried to disqualify candidates who did not have some minimum education. This was for municipal and panchayat elections. Some states already disqualify you for a sarpanch post if you have more than two kids. These conditions are much more anti-democratic than disqualifying on the basis of criminal record.

While we wait for voters to reject criminally tainted candidates (i.e. the demand side pressure), let us also pass laws to disqualify at least those who have very serious charges against them (i.e. supply side pressure). Only then can we make progress on cleansing politics. Otherwise, our record will keep getting murky (the latest Delhi state election outcome is no exception), and our standing as a robust and vibrant democracy will keep getting embarrassing.

The article was originally published on Mumbai Mirror.