New Delhi: Election commission supported on wednesday Supreme courtDecision to constitute an expert committee to examine regulatory measures on freebies announced by political parties ahead of elections, but strongly object to SC’s remarks as being non-serious about the problem refused.
“For the commission being the constitutional authority, it may not be appropriate to offer to be part of the expert committee, especially if the expert committee consists of ministries or government bodies. In addition, there are frequent elections in the country and multi-member bodies Any opinion/idea/comment during the deliberations may, in the event of publicity, be there for pre-deciding the issue and providing equal opportunity,” the Election Commission said in an affidavit.
when dealing with a Public interest litigation In relation to freebies filed by Ashwini Upadhyay, on August 3, a 3-J Bench headed by CJI NV Ramana had said, “We are of the view that it would be appropriate to constitute an expert body with representatives of all stakeholders: beneficiaries, of freebies.” Opposition, Central Government, State Governments, Opposition Parties, Finance Commission, reserve Bank of India, NITI Aayog etc., to take a holistic and comprehensive view of the matter and make its recommendations”.
Refusing to be part of the expert body, the EC objected to the Supreme Court’s oral observations – “If the EC had taken up the issue and taken steps, this problem would not have arisen” – during the August 3 hearing and Said “irreparable damage” to its reputation built over the years.
The Election Commission said it was the Supreme Court in its 2013 judgment that the promises made by political parties and candidates in their manifestos can neither be treated as a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act nor equal opportunity. Violation of (Article 14) )
To rub it in, the EC in its 2013 verdict said in ‘S’ Subramaniam Balajik Vs Tamil Nadu‘ matter,” the SC had refused to interfere with the schemes under which goods like gold, TVs, laptops, mixer-grinders, electric fans, apart from distribution of solar powered greenhouses and milch animals and goats to the targeted beneficiaries. The SC held that the distribution of such goods was directly related to the Directive Principles of State Policy and that whether to spend thereon and to what extent was not to be determined by the court , rather it was to be decided and debated in the legislature.”
The Election Commission said it had prepared a model code of conduct in 2013 as directed by the court. However, the Commission observed, “The oral observations made by the SC … have caused irreparable damage to the reputation of this institution (EC). A reputational damage of this magnitude does not bode well for a country which is relatively small but the largest and Stable democracy.”
The Election Commission, in its previous affidavit, had said that it had only indicated the limitations on its part due to the SC’s decision, but during the hearing by the SC it was portrayed in a light that made the institution aware of the danger of offering freebies. Appeared non-serious in handling.
“For the commission being the constitutional authority, it may not be appropriate to offer to be part of the expert committee, especially if the expert committee consists of ministries or government bodies. In addition, there are frequent elections in the country and multi-member bodies Any opinion/idea/comment during the deliberations may, in the event of publicity, be there for pre-deciding the issue and providing equal opportunity,” the Election Commission said in an affidavit.
when dealing with a Public interest litigation In relation to freebies filed by Ashwini Upadhyay, on August 3, a 3-J Bench headed by CJI NV Ramana had said, “We are of the view that it would be appropriate to constitute an expert body with representatives of all stakeholders: beneficiaries, of freebies.” Opposition, Central Government, State Governments, Opposition Parties, Finance Commission, reserve Bank of India, NITI Aayog etc., to take a holistic and comprehensive view of the matter and make its recommendations”.
Refusing to be part of the expert body, the EC objected to the Supreme Court’s oral observations – “If the EC had taken up the issue and taken steps, this problem would not have arisen” – during the August 3 hearing and Said “irreparable damage” to its reputation built over the years.
The Election Commission said it was the Supreme Court in its 2013 judgment that the promises made by political parties and candidates in their manifestos can neither be treated as a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act nor equal opportunity. Violation of (Article 14) )
To rub it in, the EC in its 2013 verdict said in ‘S’ Subramaniam Balajik Vs Tamil Nadu‘ matter,” the SC had refused to interfere with the schemes under which goods like gold, TVs, laptops, mixer-grinders, electric fans, apart from distribution of solar powered greenhouses and milch animals and goats to the targeted beneficiaries. The SC held that the distribution of such goods was directly related to the Directive Principles of State Policy and that whether to spend thereon and to what extent was not to be determined by the court , rather it was to be decided and debated in the legislature.”
The Election Commission said it had prepared a model code of conduct in 2013 as directed by the court. However, the Commission observed, “The oral observations made by the SC … have caused irreparable damage to the reputation of this institution (EC). A reputational damage of this magnitude does not bode well for a country which is relatively small but the largest and Stable democracy.”
The Election Commission, in its previous affidavit, had said that it had only indicated the limitations on its part due to the SC’s decision, but during the hearing by the SC it was portrayed in a light that made the institution aware of the danger of offering freebies. Appeared non-serious in handling.