In a recent decision, Justice Rohinton F. Supreme Court bench headed by Nariman fined eight political parties For contempt of court directions to inform citizens about criminal background of their candidates. In 2004, 24% of Members of Parliament had criminal cases pending against them. This figure rose alarmingly to 43% after the 2019 general elections. To address this “maliciousness” of criminalization, which could be “deadly to democracy”, the apex court, in a series of judgments, has asked political parties not only to declare criminal histories of candidates and also to publicize them widely. had instructed, but also informed. Why did the electoral college find these candidates more suitable by the party than candidates with criminal background. Presuming that the parties would quote ‘winnability’ as the criterion, the court clarified that the reasons for selection would be with reference to the merit, achievements and merits of the candidate concerned. Despite these clear instructions, the parties are defying.
contempt of right to know
This is not the first instance when political parties have shown complete contempt for people’s right to information. Acting in exemplary unity after the verdict in Union of India vs ADR (2002), in which all candidates running for election were directed to file an affidavit declaring their educational, financial and criminal background, political parties amended the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to do away with the disclosure requirements did. The court struck down the amendments.
Read also: Parties get 48 hours to publish criminal records of candidates
In 2013, a full bench of the Central Information Commission (CIC) declared six national political parties as ‘public authorities’ under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The parties were required to appoint a Public Information Officer and submit themselves to its provisions. Transparency Law. The resolve of the parties not to share information about their functioning with citizens was so strong that a bill was immediately introduced in the Parliament to amend the RTI Act to exclude political parties from the purview of the law. The amendments were eventually dropped due to strong public outcry. Nevertheless, without obtaining a stay of the Commission’s order from any court, adhering to the policy of what can only be termed ‘misconduct’, the parties have vehemently refused to comply with the direction.
electoral bond scheme
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which came to power on the issue of transparency and anti-corruption, has protested against transparency on a new front. It introduced the electoral bond scheme in 2018, which led to an influx of unlimited anonymous funds to political parties by Indian and foreign sources. The Indian political system has traditionally been hostile to the idea of transparency in electoral funding. Political parties have enthusiastically opposed any examination of the relationship between the policies and decisions of their governments and the interests of their major donors. Electoral bonds have dealt a further blow to people’s right to know and strengthened the role of big money in electoral politics. The ability of people to democratically engage with political processes and monitor corporate donations has been undermined.
The design of the scheme is such that citizens and opposition parties have no way of knowing who is donating bonds to which party, but it is not difficult for the party in power to access the data. This asymmetry of information in favor of the party in power gives it an unfair advantage. It is no surprise that the BJP has captured the lion’s share of donations through bonds.
Hearing a challenge to the instrument of electoral bonds, the Supreme Court said in 2019 that the case “gives up enormous issues, which have tremendous bearing on the sanctity of the electoral process in the country…”. This was not given immediate attention and the petition is pending for almost four years.
Political parties are at the heart of our democracy. They form governments that make policies that have a profound impact on people’s lives. In the legislature, elected representatives make laws that govern us. Therefore, people have a right to know how political parties are operating – who is funding them and when making policy decisions, supporting or opposing bills in the legislature, or selecting candidates for various elections. What principles do they keep in mind?
The Court has repeatedly appealed to the conscience of the MPs to take steps to ensure greater transparency of political parties and prohibit the participation of persons with criminal history in politics. However, in the words of Justices Nariman and BR Gavai, “All these appeals have fallen on deaf ears… the nation continues to wait… Cleaning up the polluted stream of politics is clearly not one of the pressing concerns of the moment.” is the legislative branch of the government.”
Courts should be more proactive
It is clear that the political parties and their representatives in the legislature are not interested in making themselves accountable to the citizens. With enormous public interest at stake, perhaps the time has come for the judiciary to play a more active role. The Supreme Court needs to urgently hear the electoral bond case and the challenge of refusal by political parties to comply with the CIC order. Lastly, there is a need to examine whether there is a possibility of deterring parties that generate income of hundreds of crores every year from the subsequent determination of violation of its directions regarding disclosure of criminal history of candidates and fine of few lakh rupees. declare. The judiciary may also consider setting up a mechanism to monitor compliance of its directions before all state and general elections, and restrict candidates who violate its orders.
The country can no longer afford the courts to be passive spectators of the weakness of democracy. Public interest demands that judicial intervention goes beyond attracting the imaginary conscience of our MPs.
Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri are members of the National Campaign for Right to Information of the people
.