Right To Information Act-Consti Project

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
-Special reference to ELECTORAL

REFORMS
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
The Real 'Swaraj' will come not by the acquisition of
authority by a few but by the acquisition of capacity by
all to resist authority when abused.
-Mahatma Gandhi
Global Perspective
The earliest reference to the Right to Information is found in
Sweden where in 1776 a convention of granting Right to
Information to all its citizens was passed. Sweden tops the list
of nations to be the least corrupt country as per Transparency
International's Index.
The UN general assembly passed a resolution in 1948 declaring
freedom of information as fundamental human right thus
recognizing people's right to have access to official information
(which is part of article 19 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Fifty six countries in the world have already enacted acts
providing right to information including countries from North
America, most of the Europe, Colombia, Peru, South Africa,
India, Austria and New Zealand. Over 25 countries have
initiated the process to enact the Right to Information law most
of which are from South America, East Africa,South East Asian,
some from Russian federation. In the US, the Right to
Information Act of 1966 was amended in 1974 after the
'Watergate' scandal. It would thus be seen that the Right to
Information is a global phenomenon. Most of the democratic
countries have recognized the Right to Information in one way
{IV.SEMESTER PROJECT} RTI Act, Special Reference to Electoral ReformsPage 1
or the other. International experience shows that it can also be

co-related to development.
National Perspective
It was for the first time that a ruling was given by the Supreme
Court in 1982 to the effect that 'Disclosure of Information as
regards the functioning of Government must be the rule and
secrecy an exception'.
In the famous case of Mr. Kulwal v/s Jaipur Municipal
Corporation in 1986 the Supreme Court gave clear cut directive
that Freedom of Speech and Expression provided under article
19 of the Constitution clearly implies Right to Information as
without information the freedom of speech and expression
cannot be fully used by the citizens. The Right to Information
for the citizens has not come on a platter and there have been
many activists whose continuous efforts and movements have
brought about this change .The famous Mazdoor Kissal Shakti
Sanghatan movement of Rajastan in May 1990 led by Smt.
Aruna Roy; the attempts of Shri. Harsh Mander, the then
Divisional Commissioner of Bilaspur (MP) in 1996 to throw open
the registers of Employment Exchange and the records of
public distribution system to the citizens; the agitation led by
Shri. Anna Hazare in Maharashtra in 2001 as well as the
agitation by an NGO in a small place like Bhilangana block in
Tehri Gadhwal are examples. Some States like Tamilnadu,
Goa,Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Assam
and J&K had enacted their own
Right to Information Acts.
The Need For The Right To Information

In recent years, there has been an almost unstoppable global
trend towards recognition of the right to information by
countries, intergovernmental organizations, civil society and
the people. The right to information has been recognized as a
fundamental human right, which upholds the inherent dignity
of all human beings. The right to information forms the crucial

underpinning of participatory democracy - it is essential to
ensure accountability and good governance. The greater the
access of the citizen to information, the greater the
responsiveness of government to community needs.
Alternatively, the more restrictions that are placed on access,
the greater will be the feelings of 'powerlessness' and
'alienation'. Without information, people cannot adequately
exercise their rights as citizens or make informed choice.
The free flow of information in India remains severely restricted
by three factors:
a. The legislative framework includes several pieces of
restrictive legislation, such as the Official Secrets Act, 1923;
b. The pervasive culture of secrecy and arrogance within the
bureaucracy; and
c. The low levels of literacy and rights awareness amongst
India's people.
The primary power of RTI is the fact that it empowers individual
Citizens to requisition information. Hence without necessarily
forming pressure groups or associations, it puts power directly
into the hands of the foundation of democracy- the Citizen.
Applicability
The Act applies both to Central and State Governments and
all public authorities. A public authority (sec.2(h)) which is
bound to furnish information means any authority or body or
institution of self-government established or constituted (a)
by or under the Constitution, (b) by any other law made by
Parliament, (c) by any other law made by State Legislature,
(d) by a notification issued or order made by the appropriate
Government and includes any (i) body owned, controlled or
substantially financed, (ii) non-government organization
substantially financed - which, in clauses (a) to (d) are all,
directly or indirectly funded by the appropriate Government.
Definition:Information
The Act defines information in sec. 2(f) as any material in
any form, including the records, documents, memos, e-mails,
opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, log

books, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data
material held in any electronic form and information relating
to any private body which can be accessed by a public
authority under any law for the time being in force. Sec. 2(i)
defines the word record as including (a) any document,
manuscript and file, (b) any microfilm, microfiche and
facsimile copy of a document, (c) any reproduction of image
or images embodied in such microfilm and (d) any other
material produced by a computer or any other device.
Definition: Right To Information

The right to information is defined in sec. 2(j) as a right to
information accessible under the Act which is held by or under
the control of any public authority and includes a right to (i)
inspection of work, documents, records, (ii) taking notes,
extracts or certified copies of documents or records, (iii) taking
separate samples of material, (iv) obtaining information in the
form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any
other electronic mode or through printouts where such
information is stored in a computer or in any other device.
Right to Information under the Act

A citizen has a right to seek such information from a public
authority which is held by the public authority or which is held
under its control. This right includes inspection of work,
documents and records; taking notes, extracts or certified
copies of documents or records; and taking certified samples of
material held by the public authority or held under the control
of the public authority. It is important to note that only such
information can be supplied under the Act that is available and
existing and is held by the public authority or is held under the
control of the public authority. The Public Information Officer is
not supposed to create information that is not a part of the
record of the public authority. The Public Information Officer is
also not required to furnish information which require drawing
of inference and/or making of assumptions; or to interpret

information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants;
or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions.
Right to Information Act as a Fundamental

Right
Supreme Court on The Right to Right To Information ActThe right to information as a fundamental right flowing
from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is
now a well settles proposition. Over the years, the
Supreme court has consistently ruled in favour of the
citizens right to know. The nature of this right and the
relevant restrictions thereto, has been discussed by the
Supreme Court in a numerous of cases.
In Benett Coleman, the right to information was held to
be included within the right to freedom of speech and
expression guaranteed by Article (19)(1)(a).
In Raj Narain ,the Supreme Court explicitly stated that it
is not in the interest of the public to cover with a veil of
secrecy the common routine business-the responsibility of
officials to explain and to justify their acts in the chief
safeguard against oppression and corruption.
In S.P. Gupta, the right of the people to know about every
public act and the details of every transaction undertaken
by public functionaries was described.
Maintenance And Publication Of Records
Sec. 4 makes it a duty of public authorities to maintain
records for easy access and to publish within 120 days the
name of the particular officers who should give the
information and in regard to the framing of the rules,
regulations etc. Subsection (3) of sec. 4 states that for the
performance of subsection (1), all information shall be
disseminated widely and in such form and manner, which is
easily accessible to the public. Sec. 6 permits persons to
obtain information in English or Hindi or in the official
language of the area from the designated officers. The
person need not give any reason for the request or any
personal details. Sec. 7 requires the request to be disposed
of within 30 days provided that where information sought for

concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be
provided within 48 hours. Under sec. 7(7) before any
decision is taken for furnishing the information, the
designated officer shall take into consideration the
representation, if any, made by a third party under sec. 11. A
request rejected shall be communicated under sec. 7(8)
giving reasons and specifying the procedure for appeal and
the designation of the appellate authority. Sec. 7(9) exempts
granting information where it would disproportionately divert
the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental
to the safety and preservation of the record in question.
Exemptions
Sec. 8 exempts from disclosure certain information and
contents as stated in Sub-clauses (a) to (j) thereof. Subclause (b) exempts information, which is expressly
forbidden by any court of law or tribunal or the dispute of
which may constitute contempt of court. Sub-clause (g)
exempts information the disclosure of which would
endanger life, or physical safety of any person or identify
the source of information or assistance given in
confidence for law enforcement or security purpose. Subclause (h) exempts information, which could impede the
process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of
offenders. Sub-clause (i) exempts Cabinet papers. It is
important to note that the Act specifies that intelligence
and security organizations are exempted from the
application of the Act. However, it is provided that in case
the demand for information pertains to allegations of
corruption and human rights violations, the Act shall apply
even to such institutions.
Meaning of Elections in India

India has an asymmetric federal government, with elected
officials at the federal, state and local levels. At the national
level, the head of government, prime minister, is elected by
members of the Lok Sabha, the lower house of the parliament
of India. The elections are conducted by the Election
Commission of India. All members of the Lok Sabha, except two

who can be nominated by the President of India, are directly
elected through general elections which take place every five
years,
in
normal
circumstances,
by universal
adult
suffrage. Members of the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of the
Indian parliament, are elected by elected members of the
legislative assemblies of the states and the Electoral college for
the Union Territories of India.2014 general elections involved
an electorate of 814.5 million people (larger than both EU and
US elections combined). Declared expenditure has trebled
since 1989 to almost $300 million, using more than one
million electronic voting machines The size of the huge
electorate mandates that elections be conducted in a number
of phases (there were nine phases in the 2014 general
election). It involves a number of step-by-step processes from
announcement of election dates to the announcement of
results paving the way for the formation of the new
government.
Indian electoral system

The Parliament of India comprises the head of state and the
two houses which are the legislature. The president of India is
elected for a five-year term by an electoral college consisting of
members of federal and state legislatures. This is election
process
of
India.The House
of
the
People
(Lok
Sabha) represents citizens of India (as envisaged by the
Constitution of India, currently the members of Lok Sabha are
545, out of which 543 are elected for five-year term and two
members represent the Anglo-Indian community). The 545
members are elected under the plurality ('first past the
post') electoral system.
The Council of States (Rajya
Sabha) has 245 members, 233 members elected for a six-year
term, with one-third retiring every two years. The members are
indirectly elected, this being achieved by the votes of
legislators in the state and union (federal) territories. The
elected members are chosen under the system of proportional
representation by means of the single transferable vote. The
twelve nominated members are usually an eclectic mix of

eminent
artists
(including
actors),
scientists,
jurists,
sportspersons, businessmen and journalists and common
people.
Indian political parties

Indian National Congress dominated the Indian political scene
under
the
leadership
of Jawaharlal
Nehru from
the
independence in 1947 until his death in 1964. The party
continued its dominance under the leadership of K
Kamaraj and Lal Bahadur Shastri. The Congress party was split
into two in the 1970's and Indira Gandhi led Congress (I) to
election victory. But the winning run was broken for the first
time in 1977, with the defeat of the party led by Indira Gandhi,
by an unlikely coalition of all the major other parties, which
protested
against
the
imposition
of
a
controversial emergency from 19751977. But, Indira Gandhi
regained power soon after and her son Rajiv Gandhi led the
party after her death. A coalition led by VP Singh swept to
power in 1989 in the wake of major allegations of corruption
against then Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi. But the coalition lost
steam in 1990 necessitating new elections with the congress
party again emerging victorious under the leadership of P V
Narasimha Rao.
In 1996, the election results led to a coalition system wherein
no single party achieved a majority in the Parliament to form a
government, but rather has to depend on a process of coalition
building with other parties to form a block and claim a majority
to be invited to form the government. This has been a
consequence of strong regional parties which ride on the back
of regional aspirations. There were multiple governments within
a span of few years led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, I K Gujral and H
D Deve Gowda.
In 1999, National Democratic Alliance led by the Bharatiya
Janata Party came to power and became the first coalition
government to complete the full term. For the next decade,
congress led coalition United Progressive Alliance formed the
government under Manmohan Singh. In the recent elections
held in 2014, the National Democratic Alliance led by
the Bharatiya Janata Party came to power with Bharatiya Janata
Party achieving a simple majority on its own by securing 282

seats. Narendra Modi, the BJP's Prime Ministerial candidate, is
now serving his first term as the Prime Minister of India.
While parties like the Telugu Desam Party, the All India Anna
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and the Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam have traditionally been strong regional contenders,
the 1990s saw the emergence of other regional players such
as Indian
National Lok Dal, Shiromani Akali Dal, Shiv
Sena, Samajwadi Party, Bahujan Samaj Party and Janata Dal.
These parties are traditionally based on regional aspirations
like Telangana Rashtra Samithi and Shiv Sena or strongly
influenced by caste considerations like Bahujan Samaj
Party which claims to represent the Dalits.
RIGHT TO INFORMATION
POLITICAL PARTIES
ACT
AND
There has always been so much of controversy regarding

whether political parties comes under the ambit of right to
information act or not and it is still not clear that whether
political parties comply with the order of Chief Information
Commission as some parties agrees and most of them do not
which leaves all of us with a question that Why do political
parties refuse to come under the ambit of political parties?
and most importantly that leaders of these political parties who
claim to be the servants of common people how much political
parties are honest to the common people?
Qualification and Disqualification of Candidates under
Anti-Defection law:
I.
DISQUALIFICATION
a. If a member of a house belonging to a political party:
- Voluntarily gives up the membership of his political
party, or
- Votes, or does not vote in the legislature, contrary to
the directions of
his political party.
However, if the member has taken prior permission, or is

condoned by the party within 15
days from such voting or abstention, the member shall not
be disqualified.
b. If an independent candidate joins a political party after
the election.
c. If a nominated member joins a party six months after he
becomes a
member of the legislature.
II. Power to DISQUALIFY
a.) The Chairman or the Speaker of the House takes the
decision to disqualify
a member.
b.) If a complaint is received with respect to the defection of
the Chairman or
Speaker, a member of the House elected
by that House shall take the decision.
III. EXCEPTION
Merger
A person shall not be disqualified if his original political
party merges with
another, and
- He and other members of the old political party become
members of the new political party,
or
- He and other members do not accept the merger and opt to
function as a separate group.
This exception shall operate only if not less than two-thirds of
the members of party in the House
have agreed to the merger.
THE ELECTORAL REFORMS

Why electoral reforms?
Therefore there is a widespread and increasing disenchantment
of the people with politics and politicians in India. The public
awareness and disenchantment is growing with regard to
rampant entry of elements having criminal antecedents into
the political arena and system of governance. For example, in
the current Lok Sabha, nearly a quarter (23.2%) of the MPs has
reported criminal cases pending against them. One out of two
among them
(over 50%) has cases that could attract penalties of

imprisonment of five years or more. Though political parties
have been showing lesser interests and only doing lip service
and tokenism for reforming the electoral system as such no
genuine attempts have ever been made by any party for the
last many years to curb criminalisation of the politics and to
some these distortions in the political system, It has been
observed, whenever, it has particularly suited the party in
power, there has hardly been any genuine attempt for bringing
any significant changes in the electoral system. The people of
India has been expecting from all the political parties, that
some honest efforts are required from the political parties to
initiate the electoral reform as well as bringing substantial
changes in the electoral system, as such the people of India
has been giving their moods by swinging election results as
way of their expressions in the form of
election results. That though there have been numerous
reports with many practicable solutions are lying with the
government for many years, still no government has shown its
genuine efforts or courage to cleanse political system. Some of
the significant committee reports and their recommendations
given by many of including the 170th Report of the Law
Commission of India on Review of the working of political
parties and Electoral Reforms and the Recommendations of the
National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution
(NCRWC). The topic of electoral 61 reforms has been taken up
by numerous government committees in the recent past,
including but not limited to:
Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms (1990)
Vohra Committee Report (1993)
Indrajit Gupta Committee on State Funding of Elections
(1998)
Law Commission Report on Reform of the Electoral Laws
(1999)
National Commission to Review the Working of the
Constitution (2001)
Election Commission of India Proposed Electoral
Reforms (2004)
The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2008)
Various Spheres of Important

Electoral
Reforms and Proposed Electoral Reforms:
20th Law Commissions
Disqualification2014
Provisions)
244th
Report
on Electoral
(Important
The Need for Reform

A. FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS
Democracy as a form of governance was the central plinth of

the constitutional scheme envisaged by the framers of the
Constitution of India. The ultimate aim, as evidenced in the
Constituent Assembly debates and gleaned from their personal
writings, was the empowering of each and every Indian citizen
to become a stakeholder in the political process. To this end,
the citizen was given the power to elect members of the
Parliament and their respective State Legislative Assemblies
through the exercise of their vote, a system that the framers
believed would ensure that only the most worthy candidates
would be elected to posts of influence and authority.
Representative government, sourcing its legitimacy from the
People, who were the ultimate sovereign, was thus the kernel
of the democratic system envisaged by the Constitution. Over
time, this has been held to be a part of the basic structure of
the Constitution, immune to amendment, with the Supreme
Court of India declaring
It is beyond the pale of reasonable controversy that if there

be any unamendable features of the Constitution on the score
that they form a part of the basic structure of Constitution, it is
that India is a Sovereign Democratic Republic. 1
1 Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain and Others, 1975 Supp SCC 1, 252 para 664.
Thus, inherent in the model of representative government

based on popular sovereignty is the commitment to hold
regular free and fair elections. The importance of free and fair
elections stems from two factors instrumentally, its central
role in selecting the persons who will govern the people, and
intrinsically, as being a legitimate expression of popular will.
Stressing the importance of free and fair elections in a
democratic polity, the Supreme Court held in Mohinder Singh
Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner,2
To ensure free and fair elections, and give impetus to the vision
of the framers, Parliament enacted The Representation of the
People Act, 1951 (hereinafter RPA) which inter alia provides
qualifications and disqualifications for membership of
Parliament and State Legislatures, lays down corrupt practices
that are punishable by law, creates other offences in
connection with such elections and for the resolution of
disputes arising out of or in connection with them. The
underlying rationale for the legislation is thus to create a
systemic framework conducive to free and fair elections.
Implicit in this framework is the need to prescribe certain
qualifications and disqualifications, which are deemed to be
respectively essential or unsuitable for holders of public office.
A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Centre for
Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India 3(the CVC
case) raised the standards of qualification for appointment to
a public office. Holding it imperative for the members to uphold
and preserve the integrity of the institution, it was laid down
that not the desirability of the candidate alone but the
institutional integrity of the office which should be the
reigning consideration in appointments to a public office. The
spirit of this judgment, applicable to all public offices, is that it
is not only imperative for the candidate for such office to have
2 (1978) 1 SCC 405, 424 at para 23.
3 2011) 4 SCC 1.
the highest standards of integrity, but independently that the

integrity of the institution must be preserved. Having criminal
elements in politics, no matter whether they are convicted or
not, indubitably tarnishes the latter, if not the former as well.
B. THE EXTENT OF CRIMINALISATION IN POLITICS
Despite the best intentions of the drafters of the Constitution
and the Members of Parliament at the onset of the Indian
Republic, the fear of a nexus between crime and politics was
widely expressed from the first general election itself in 1952.
In fact, as far back as in 1922, Mr C. Rajagopalachari had
anticipated the present state of affairs twenty five years before
Independence, when he wrote in his prison diary: Elections
and their corruption, injustice and tyranny of wealth, and
inefficiency of administration, will make a hell of life as soon as
freedom is given to us4
Since the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v.
Association for Democratic Reforms,5 which made the
analysis of criminal records of candidates possible by requiring
such records to be disclosed by way of affidavit, the public has
had a chance to quantitatively assess the validity of such
observations made in the previous reports. The result of such
analysis leads to considerable concern.
In the ten years since 2004, 18% of candidates contesting
either National or State elections have criminal cases pending
against them (11,063 out of 62,847). In 5,253 or almost half of
these cases (8.4% of the total candidates analysed), the
charges are of serious criminal offences that include murder,
attempt to murder, rape, crimes against women, cases under
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, or under the
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 which on
conviction would result in five years or more of jail, etc. 152
candidates had 10 or more serious cases pending, 14
4 Per C Rajagopalachari in Kishor Gandhi, India's Date with Destiny: Ranbir Singh
Chowdhary Felicitation Volume, 1st Ed. (Allied Publishers, 2006) 133.
5 2002) 5 SCC 294.
candidates had 40 or more such cases and 5 candidates had 50

or more cases against them.6
The 5,253 candidates with serious cases together had
13,984 serious charges against them. Of these charges, 31%
were cases of murder and other murder related offences, 4%
were cases of rape and offences against women, 7% related to
kidnapping and abduction, 7% related to robbery and dacoity,
14% related to forgery and counterfeiting including of
government seals and 5% related to breaking the law during
elections.7
Criminal backgrounds are not limited to contesting candidates,
but are found among winners as well. Of these 5,253
candidates with serious criminal charges against them, 1,187
went on to winning the elections they contested i.e. 13.5% of
the 8,882 winners analysed from 2004 to 2013. Overall,
including both serious and non-serious charges, 2,497 (28.4%
of the winners) had 9,993 pending criminal cases against them.
In the current Lok Sabha, 30% or 162 sitting MPs have criminal
cases pending against them, of which about half i.e. 76 have
serious criminal cases. Further, the prevalence of MPs with
criminal cases pending has increased over time. In 2004, 24%
of Lok Sabha MPs had criminal cases pending, which increased
to 30% in the 2009 elections.8
The situation is similar across states with 31% or 1,258 out of
4,032 sitting MLAs with pending cases, with again about half
being serious cases.14 Some states have a much higher
percentage of MLAs with criminal records: in Uttar Pradesh,
47% of MLAs have criminal cases pending.15 A number of MPs
and MLAs have been accused of multiple counts of criminal
charges. In a constituency of Uttar Pradesh, for example, the
6 Association for Democratic Reforms Press Release-Ten Years of Election Watch
Comprehensive
7 12TrilochanSastry, Towards Decriminalisation of Elections and Politics,
Economic & Political Weekly, 4 January, 2014.
8 Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India-National level Analysis of
Lok Sabha 2009 Elections (2009)
MLA has 36 criminal cases pending including 14 cases related

to murder.
C. THE ROLE OF POLITICAL PARTIES
Political parties are a central institution of our democracy; the
life blood of the entire constitutional scheme.Political parties
act as a conduit through which interests and issues of the
people get represented in Parliament. Since political parties
play a central role in the interface between private citizens and
public life, they have also been chiefly responsible for the
growing criminalisation of politics. Several observers offer
explanations of why parties may choose candidates with a
tainted background. As discussed above, studies show that
candidates with criminal records have fared better in elections
and that criminals seem to have an electoral advantage. Since
electoral politics is a combination of several factors, often
issues like ethnicity or other markers of the candidate may
overcome the reputational loss he suffers from the criminal
records. Further, electoral politics is largely dependent on the
money and the funding that it receives. Several studies by
economists estimate that candidates and parties in the 2009
general elections alone spent roughly $3 billion on campaign
expenditures. Huge election expenses have also resulted into
large-scale pervasiveness of so-called black money. The Law
Commission has earlier also expressed the concern of election
expenses being far greater than legal limits. Therefore,
campaign funding is one of the most important concerns for
political parties. Since candidates with criminal records often
possess greater wealth, the negative effect of the stigma of
criminal charges can be overcome by greater campaigning
resources. Thus, even if a candidate has any criminal record, he
may fare well in elections due to the positive effect of the other
markers. Thus, overall a candidate with a criminal record can
prove beneficial to political parties in several ways. Not only
does he ensure greater inflow in money, labour and other
advantages that may help a party in successful campaign, but
also possess greater winnability. Many studies have
consequently highlighted the direct relationship between the
membership of local criminals and inflow of money into the
coffers of political parties. This is dealt with in detail later in the
report.
The Law Commission of India, in its 170th report quoted in

Subhash Chandra Agarwal the Central Information
Commission (CIC) has made certain observations which are
very pertinent to describing the position of political parties in
our democracy:
It is the Political Parties that form the Government, man the
Parliament and run the governance of the country. It is
therefore, necessary to introduce internal democracy, financial
transparency and accountability in the working of the Political
Parties. A political party which does not respect democratic
principles in its internal working cannot be expected to respect

those principles in the governance of the country. It cannot be
dictatorship internally and democratic in its functioning
outside. 9
Additionally, under Section 29A(5) of the Representation of
People Act, 1951, which currently regulates the functioning of
political parties, the political parties are required to bear true
faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law
established10. Further, in order to reach to the conclusion that
political parties are public authorities, the CIC also referred to
several constitutional provisions which accord rights and
obligations to political parties.11Thus, political parties are not
merely any other organisation, but important institutions
having constitutional rights and obligations.
The NCRWC highlighted similar concerns on the functioning of
political parties and recommended a separate law for
9 Reform of Electoral Laws, 170thReport of the Law Commission of India, 1999.
10 Schedule X, The Constitution of India, 1951.
11 Schedule X, The Constitution of India, 1951.
regulating some of the internal affairs of political parties in

order to deal with the crime-politics nexus.33 It also opined
that in case of conviction on a criminal charge, apart from
disqualification of the representative, a political party should be
held responsible and be sanctioned in some way, for example,
by de-recognition of the party.
Though the RPA disqualifies a sitting legislator or a candidate
on certain grounds, there is nothing regulating the
appointments to offices within the organisation of the party.
Political parties play a central role in Indian democracy.
Therefore, a politician may be disqualified from being a
legislator, but may continue to hold high positions within his
party, thus also continuing to play an important public role
which he has been deemed unfit for by the law. Convicted
politicians may continue to influence law-making by controlling
the party and fielding proxy candidates in legislature. In a
democracy essentially based on parties being controlled by a
high-command, the process of breaking crime-politics nexus
extends much beyond purity of legislators and encompasses
purity of political parties as well.
D. EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Legally, the prevention of the entry of criminals into politics is

accomplished by prescribing certain disqualifications that will
prevent a person from contesting elections or occupying a seat
in Parliament or an Assembly. Qualifications of members of
Parliament are listed in Article 84 of the Constitution, while
disqualifications can be found under Article 102. Corresponding
provisions for members of State Legislative Assemblies are
found in Articles 173 and 191.
Article 102 states that a person shall be disqualified from being
chosen, and from being a member of either House of
Parliament if he holds an office of profit, if he is of unsound
mind and so declared by a competent court, if he is an
undischarged insolvent, if he is not a citizen of India and if he is

disqualified by any other law made by Parliament.
Parliament through the RPA has prescribed further
qualifications and disqualifications for membership to
Parliament or to a Legislative Assembly. Section 8 of the Act
lists certain offences which, if a person is convicted of any of
them, disqualifies him from being elected, or continuing as, a
Member of Parliament or Legislative Assembly. Specifically,
Section 8(1) lists a number of offences, convictions under
which disqualify the candidate irrespective of the quantum of
sentence or fine these include certain electoral offences,
offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, the
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 etc. Section 8(2) lists other
offences, convictions under which would only result in
disqualification if imprisonment is for six months or more.
Section 8(3) is a residuary provision under which if a candidate
is convicted of any offence and imprisoned for two years or
more, he is disqualified.12 Disqualification operates from the
date of conviction and continues for a further period of six
years from the date of release.
The scheme of disqualification upon conviction laid down by
the RPA clearly upholds the principle that a person who has
conducted criminal activities of a certain nature is unfit to be a
representative of the people. The criminal activities that result
in disqualification irrespective of punishment under S. 8(1) are
either related to public office, such as electoral offences or
insulting the national flag, or are of grave nature, such as
offences under terrorism laws. S. 8(3), on the other hand,
envisages that any offence for which the minimum punishment
is two years is of a character serious enough to merit
disqualification. In either case, it is clear that the RPA lays down
that the
commission of serious criminal offences renders a person
ineligible to stand for elections or continue as a representative
of the people. Such a restriction, it was envisaged, would
provide the statutory deterrent necessary to prevent criminal
elements from holding public office, thereby preserving the
probity of representative government.
12 Section 8(4), which existed previously, was struck down by the Supreme
Court in Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 653.
However, it is clear from the above account of the spread of

criminalisation in politics that the purpose behind S. 8 of the
RPA is not being served. The consequences of such
criminalisation and the possible reform measures that may be
considered shall be discussed in the following chapters.
With respect to the filing of affidavits by candidates, a
candidate to any National or State Assembly elections is
required to furnish an affidavit, in the shape of Form 26
appended to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, containing
information regarding their assets, liabilities, educational
qualifications, criminal convictions against them that have not
resulted in disqualification, and cases in which criminal charges
are framed against them for any offence punishable with two
years or more.
Failure to furnish this information, concealment of information
or giving of false information is an offence under S. 125A of the
RPA. However, the sentence under S. 125A is only
imprisonment for a period of 6 months, and the offence is not
listed under S. 8(1) or (2) of the RPA. Therefore, conviction
under S. 125A does not result in disqualification of the
candidate. Neither is the offence of false disclosure listed as a
corrupt practice which would be a ground for setting aside an
election under Section 100.
Therefore, there is currently little consequence for the offence
of filing a false affidavit, as a result of which the practice is
rampant.
E. SUPREME
FRAMEWORK
COURT
JUDGMENTS
INTERPRETING
THIS
The judiciary has sought to curb this menace of criminalisation

of politics through several seminal judgments and attendant
directions to the government and the Election Commission
primarily based on the aforesaid provisions. Specifically, orders
of the Supreme Court seeking to engender a cleaner polity can
be classified into three types: first, decisions that introduce
transparency into the electoral process; second, those that
foster greater accountability for holders of public office; third,
judgments that seek to stamp out corruption in public life. The
discussion below is not meant to be an exhaustive account; it
merely illustrates the trends in Supreme Court
jurisprudence relating to the question of de-criminalisation of

politics.In Union of India v. Association for Democratic
Reforms 13(hereinafter ADR)the Supreme Court directed
the Election Commission to call for certain information on
affidavit of each candidate contesting for Parliamentary or
State elections. Particularly relevant to the question of
criminalisation, it mandated that such information includes
whether the candidate is convicted/acquitted/discharged of any
criminal offence in the past, and if convicted, the quantum of
punishment; and whether prior to six months of filing of
nomination, the candidate is accused in any pending case, of
any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or
more, and in which charge is framed or cognizance is taken by
a court. The constitutional justification for such a direction was
the fundamental right of electors to know the antecedents of
the candidates who are contesting for public office. Such right
to know, the Court held is a salient facet, and the foundation
for the meaningful exercise of the freedom of speech and
expression guaranteed to all citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution.
Again in Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of
India14(hereinafter PUCL) the Supreme Court struck down
Section 33B of the Representation of People (Third
Amendment) Act, 2002 which sought to limit the ambit of
operation of the earlier Supreme Court order in the ADR case.
Specifically it provided that only the information that was
required to be disclosed under the Amendment Act would have
to be furnished by candidates and not pursuant to any other
order or direction. This meant, in practical terms, that the
assets and liabilities, educational qualifications and the cases
in which he is acquitted or discharged of criminal offences
would not have to be disclosed. Striking this down, the Court
held that the provision nullified the previous order of the Court,
infringed the right of electors to know, a constituent of the
13 (2002) 5 SCC 294.
14 (2013) 10 SCC 1.
fundamental right to free speech and expression and hindered

free and fair elections which is part of the basic structure of the
Constitution. It is pursuant to these two orders that criminal
antecedents of all candidates in elections are a matter of public
record, allowing voters to make an informed choice.
Third, the Supreme Court has taken several steps for
institutional reform to sever the connection between crime and
politics.
In Vineet Narain v. Union of India15 a case concerning the

inertia of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in
investigating matters arising out of certain seized documents
known as the Jain diaries which disclosed a nexus between
politicians, bureaucrats and criminals, who were recipients of
money from unlawful sources, the Supreme (1998) 1 SCC 226.
Court used the power of continuing mandamus to direct largescale institutional reform in the vigilance and investigation
apparatus in the country. It directed the Government of India to
grant statutory status to the Central Vigilance Commission
(CVC), laid down the conditions necessary for the independent
functioning of the CBI, specified a selection process for the
Director, Enforcement Directorate (ED), called for the creation
of an independent prosecuting agency and a high-powered
nodal agency to co-ordinate action in cases where a politicobureaucrat-criminal nexus became apparent. These steps thus
mandated a complete overhaul of the investigation and
prosecution of criminal cases involving holders of public office.
Addressing the problem of delays in obtaining sanctions for
prosecuting public servants in corruption cases, Vineet
Narain also set down a time limit of three months for grant of
such sanction. This directive was endorsed by the Supreme
Court in SubramaniumSwamy v. Manmohan Singh,16where
the Court went on to suggest the restructuring of Section 19 of
15 (1998) 1 SCC 226.
16 (2012) 3 SCC 65.
the Prevention of Corruption Act such that sanction for

prosecution will be deemed to have been granted by the
concerned authority at the expiry of the extended time limit of
four months. In these and other cases,41 the Supreme Court
has attempted to facilitate the prosecution of criminal activity,
specifically corruption, in the sphere of governance.
The Supreme Court, through its interpretation of statutory
provisions connected with elections as well as creative use of
its power to enforce fundamental rights, has made great strides
towards ensuring a cleaner polity, setting up significant barriers
to entry to public office for criminal elements as well as
instituting workable mechanisms to remove them from office if
they are already in power. The Commission appreciates that
these decisions demonstrate the need for the law itself to be
reformed on a dynamic basis taking cognizance of latest
developments. The same view is echoed by the several
committees and commissions in the past which have
recommended fundamental changes to laws governing
electoral practices and
disqualifications. A brief survey of such reports is undertaken in

the section below.
F. PREVIOUS REPORTS RECOMMENDING REFORMS
The issue of electoral reforms has been the concern of several
Commissions and Committees previously. This part surveys the
key findings and recommendations of these bodies with a view
to incorporating relevant suggestions in this Report. In the year
1999, Law Commission in its 170th report recommended
the addition of Section 8B in the RPA. This section included
certain offences (electoral offences, offences having a bearing
upon the elections viz. S. 153A, 505 of IPC and serious
offences punishable by death or life imprisonment), framing of
charges with respect thereto was sufficient to disqualify a
person from contesting elections. The proposed provision
further stipulated the disqualification to last for a period of five
years from the framing of charges or till acquittal whichever
event happens earlier. It also recommended mandatory
disclosure of such (and other) information with the nomination
paper under Section 4A in the RPA. This suggestion has

already been incorporated by inserting Section 33A in RPA
with effect from 24 August 2002.
The National Commission to Review of the Working of the
Constitution (2002) also maintained the yardstick for
disqualification as framing of charges for certain offences
(punishable with maximum imprisonment of five years or
more). There were however certain modifications in its
recommendations. First, the Commission proposed that this
disqualification would apply from one year after the date of
framing of charges and if not cleared within that period,
continue till the conclusion of trial. Secondly, in case the person
is convicted of any offence by a court of law and sentenced to
imprisonment of six months or more, the period of
disqualification would apply during the period of sentence and
continue for six years thereafter. Thirdly, in case a person is
convicted of heinous offences, it recommended a permanent
bar from contesting any political office. Fourthly, it
recommended that Special Courts be set up at the level of the
High Courts (with direct appeal to the Supreme Court) to assess
the legality of charges framed against potential candidates and
dispose of the cases in a strict time frame. Finally, it
recommended de-registration and de-recognition of political
parties, which knowingly fielded candidates with criminal
antecedents.
The Election Commission of India has also made several

recommendations from time to time to reform election law. In
August, 1997, it mandated filing of affidavits disclosing
conviction in cases covered under Section 8 of the RPA. In
September 1997, the Commission in a letter addressed to the
Prime Minister recommended amendment to Section 8 of RPA,
to disqualify any person who is convicted and sentenced to
imprisonment for six months or more, from contesting elections
for a period totalling the sentence imposed plus an additional
six years. In 1998, the Commission reiterated its above
suggestion besides recommending that any person against
whom charges are framed for an offence punishable by
imprisonment of five years or more should be disqualified. The
Commission admitted that in the eyes of law a person is
presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty; nevertheless it

submitted that the Parliament and State Legislatures are apex
law-making bodies and must be composed of persons of
integrity and probity who enjoy high reputation in the eyes of
general public, which a person who is accused of a serious
offence does not. Further, on the question of disqualification on
the ground of corrupt practice, the Commission supported the
continuation of its power to decide the term of disqualification
of every accused person as uniform criteria cannot be applied
to myriad cases of corruption- ranging from petty to grand
corruption.
To tackle the menace of wilful concealment of information or
furnishing of false information and to protect the right to
information of the electors, the Commission recommended that
the punishment under Section 125A of RPA must be made more
stringent by providing for imprisonment of a minimum term of
two years and by doing away with the alternative clause for
fine. Additionally, conviction under Section 125A RPA should
be made a part of Section 8(1)(i) of the Representation of
People Act, 1950.
The Second Administrative Reforms Commission in its
fourth report on Ethics in Governance (2008) deliberated upon
the fallouts of disqualifying candidates on various grounds. It
recommended that Section 8 of RPA needed to be amended to
disqualify all persons facing charges related to grave and
heinous offences (viz. murder, abduction, rape, dacoity, waging
war against India, organised crime, and narcotics offences) and
corruption, where charges have been framed six months before
the election. It also supported the proposal of including filing of
false affidavits as an electoral offence under Section 31 of
Representation of the People Act, 1950 as recommended by the
Election Commission in the year 1998.
Recently the Justice J.S. Verma Committee Report on

Amendments to Criminal Law (2013) proposed insertion of a
Schedule 1 to the Representation of People Act, 1951
enumerating offences under IPC befitting the category of
'heinous' offences. It recommended that Section 8(1) of the RP
Act be amended to cover inter alia the offences listed in the
proposed Schedule 1. It would then provide that a person in

respect of whose acts or omissions a court of competent
jurisdiction has taken cognizance under section 190(1)(a),(b)
or (c) of the CrPC or who has been convicted by a court of
competent jurisdiction with respect to the offences specified in
the proposed expanded list of offences under Section 8(1) shall
be disqualified from the date of taking cognizance or conviction
as the case may be. It further proposed that disqualification in
case of conviction shall continue for a further period of six
years from the date of release upon conviction and in case of
acquittal, the disqualification shall operate from the date of
taking cognizance till the date of acquittal.
DISQUALIFICATION AT THE STAGE OF FRAMING OF

CHARGES
A. RATIONALE
At the outset, the question that needs to be considered is
whether disqualification should continue to be triggered only at
the stage of conviction as is currently the case under Section 8
of the RPA.
The proportion of sitting MPs and MLAs facing some form of
criminal proceedings is at around 30% - 1,460 out of 4,807
legislators face some kind of criminal charge. By contrast, only
24 out of the 4,807 or 0.5% have been convicted at some
point of criminal charges in a court of law.
Even taking into account the suppression of data by
candidates, it is clear that there is an extremely wide gap
between legislators with trials pending and those whose trials
have actually resulted in convictions. Further, while 24
legislators have declared convictions, the number disqualified
as a result of convictions is even lower, as not all convictions
result in disqualification. Following the Lily Thomas judgment43
only 3 legislators were disqualified as a result of convictions. In
contrast with the number of pending cases against
legislators, the number of convicted MPs and MLAs continues to

be an extremely low figure, indicating a need for a change in
the law.
Delays in trials
The problem of delays in the judicial system in India has been
extensively studied and discussed from a number of
perspectives. While in the case of criminal trials the chief
concern is mainly for under-trial prisoners, delays in trials of
politically influential persons like MPs and MLAs pose a different
set of challenges. In such cases, with delay, there is an everincreasing chance that the accused will be in a position to
compromise the trial process, distort evidence, and delay
proceedings further. Delays are also caused by prolonged
absence from court proceedings by influential persons, where
the police do not enforce their presence.17
Lack of adequate deterrence
Given the low levels of convictions of MPs and MLAs, and the
lack of consequences for pending criminal charges, political
parties are not deterred from continuing to hand out party
tickets to persons with criminal backgrounds. In fact, as pointed
out earlier, data suggests that a criminal background, rather
than being a disadvantage for a political career, seems to
operate as a benefit. One researcher, having analysed
available affidavit data, has come to the conclusion that
candidates charged with a crime have a 2:1 chance of winning
the election over candidates with no criminal backgrounds.48
This means that political parties liberally and repeatedly hand
out tickets to criminally charged candidates - 74% of
candidates with criminal background have re-contested
elections in the last ten years.
Negative effects on democracy
17 Law Commission of India, Expeditious Investigation and Trial of Criminal
Cases Against Influential Public Personalities, Report No.239 (2012)
The increasing presence of persons with criminal backgrounds

has several negative effects on the quality of democracy in the
country. First, enormous amounts of illegal money are pumped
into the electoral process due to extensive links with the
criminal underworld. Along with the money, candidates with
criminal backgrounds employ illegal tactics such as voter
intimidation. Together, this distorts electoral outcomes and
consequently compromises the very basis of our democracy. It
also initiates a vicious cycle
whereby viable candidates are required to spend increasing
amounts of money in order to compete, intensifying
connections with criminal elements.
Secondly, one of the reasons for the entrance of criminals into
politics is a desire to avoid or subvert judicial proceedings
through political patronage. Criminalisation of politics thus also
has the consequence of obstructing the process of justice and
causing further delays in trials.
The law in its present form is incapable of curbing the growing
cancer of criminalisation of politics. Long delays in trials
coupled with rare convictions ensure that politicians face little
or no consequences when engaging in criminal activity. The law
needs to evolve to meet this threat to our democracy, and to
effectively curb the steady flow of criminals into the political
process. The reformed law must meet two challenges - the
limited deterrence posed by disqualification upon conviction,
and the issue of delays in trials of influential persons that result
in a subversion of the process of justice.
CONSEQUENCES UPOIN FILING OF FALSE

AFFIDAVITS
RATIONALE
A candidate to any National or State Assembly elections is
required to furnish an affidavit, in the shape of Form 26
appended to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, containing
certain information regarding their assets, liabilities, and
criminal proceedings against them, if any. Specifically, the
following information is required under Form 26 read with Rule

4A of the Conduct of Election Rules:
i. In case the candidate is accused of any offence punishable
with two years or more, and charges have been framed by the
Court, information such as the FIR No., Case No. and the date
of framing of charges;
ii. Details of conviction in any case not included in Section 8 of
the RPA, where the sentence was for one year or more;
iii. PAN Number and status of filing of Income Tax Return for the
candidate, spouse and dependents;
iv. Details of movable and immovable assets the candidate,

spouse and all dependents;
v. Details of liabilities of the candidate to public financial
institutions or to the government; and
vi. Details of profession or occupation and of educational
qualifications.
(i) Legislative history on the requirement of disclosures
The 170th Law Commission Report on Electoral Reforms,
1999 was the first to suggest that a new Section 4A be added
to the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), mandating
that a person shall be ineligible to contest elections unless he
files an affidavit declaring assets possessed by him, his spouse,
and dependent relatives. Also required was a declaration
whether charges had been framed against him in respect of
any of certain specified offences by a criminal court.
In 2002, the Association of Democratic Reforms petitioned the
Court to have the above recommendation implemented, among
others.85 The Supreme Court directed the Election Commission
to require details on assets and liabilities, pending and
convicted criminal cases and educational qualifications to be
filed on affidavit along with the nomination papers of all
candidates.
Pursuant to this judgment, the Election Commission issued

directives to the effect that failure to file an affidavit containing
the above details would result in the nomination paper being
deemed incomplete within the meaning of S. 33(1) of the RPA,
apart from inviting penal consequences under the Indian Penal
Code. The Returning Officer would conduct a summary inquiry
at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers, and only defects
of a substantial character shall be considered grounds for
rejection. Later that same year, the RPA was amended to add
Sections 33A and 33B.
Section 33B was challenged in PUCL v. Union of India.18The
Supreme Court held that Section 33B nullified the directives
issued by the Election Commission pursuant to the judgment in
Association of Democratic Reforms. The plain effect of the
embargo contained in Section 33B is to nullify substantially the
directives issued by the Election Commission pursuant to the

judgment of this Court.
(ii) Current law on disclosure of candidate information
Under Section 33A of the RPA, read with Rule 4A of
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, an affidavit in Form 26
appended to the Conduct of Election Rules, giving information
on
i. Cases in which the candidate has been accused of any
offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more in
a pending case in which charges have been framed by the
court.
ii. Cases of conviction for an offence other than any of the
offences mentioned in Section 8 of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951, and sentenced to imprisonment for one year
or more.
(iii) Current legal consequences on false disclosure
18 (2003) 4 SCC 399.
the Election Commission ordered its earlier directive on the

rejection of nomination papers non-enforceable. It instead
directed that if a complaint is submitted regarding furnishing of
false information, supported by documentary evidence, the
Returning Officer should initiate action to prosecute the
candidate under Section 125A of the RPA which provides
penalty for filing false affidavits.90 A candidate who fails to
furnish the required information, gives false information or
conceals any information, may be punished with imprisonment
for a term up to six months or with fine or with both.
However, Section 125A of the RPA has not been included in the
list of offences under Section 8 of the RPA. This means that a
conviction under Section 125A does not lead to disqualification
of the candidate for the duration of imprisonment and a further
period of 6 years.
In Resurgence India v. Election Commission of India19
decided by the SupremeCourt in 2013, the problems faced by
the Election Commission due to
the fact that nomination papers could not be rejected for

incomplete affidavits, was addressed. The court said that if an
affidavit is filed with blank particulars, it renders the entire
exercise of filing affidavits futile, and infringes the fundamental
right of citizens under Article 19(1)(a). Therefore the Returning
Officer should remind the candidate to fill the blanks, and if
such reminder is ignored, the nomination is fit to be rejected.
The court rejected the argument that the PUCL judgment
barred such a holding, and explained that PUCL merely pointed
out that the candidate lacked the ability to make a reply at the
time of scrutiny, but did not intend to bar the Returning Officer
from
rejecting
nomination
papers.
Therefore, from the decisions above, one can conclude that if
details are omitted in the nomination papers, it is fit to be
19 WP No. 121 of 2008, (SC) (13th September, 2013) (Unreported).
rejected. If information is believed to be false, prosecution

under Section 125A is possible, however the consequences
upon conviction are unclear.
This greatly undermines the very basic value of candidate
disclosures due to the lack of consequences, candidates have
little incentive to provide accurate information. This in turns
affects the fundamental right of the citizen under Article 19(1)
(a) to know the antecedents of a candidate, as recognized in
the Association for Democratic Reforms judgment.
Important Provisions of ELECTORAL LAWS

Representation of peoples Act, 1952
[33A.] Right to information.(1) A candidate shall, apart from
any information which he is required to furnish, under this Act
or the rules made there under, in his nomination paper
delivered under sub-section (1) or section 33, also furnish the
information as to whether (i) he is accused of any offence
punishable with imprisonment for two years or more in a
pending case in which a charge has been framed by the court
of competent jurisdiction; (ii) he has been convicted of an
offence [other than any offence referred to in sub-section (1) or
sub-section (2), or covered in sub-section (3), of section 8] and
sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more. (2) The
candidate of his proposer, as the case may be, shall, at the
time of delivering to the returning officer the nomination paper
under sub-section (1) of section 33, also deliver to him an
affidavit sworn by the candidate in a prescribed form very fine
the information specified in sub-section (1). (3) The returning
officer shall, as soon as may be after the furnishing of
information to him under sub-section (1), display the aforesaid
information by affixing a copy of the affidavit, delivered under
sub-section (2), at a conspicuous place at his office for the
information of the electors relating to a constituency for which
the nomination paper is delivered.]
[33B.] Candidate to furnish information only under the Act

and the rules.Notwithstanding anything contained in any
judgment, decree or order of any court or any direction, order
or any other instruction issued by the Election Commission, no
candidate shall be liable to disclose or furnish any such
information, in respect of his election which is not required to
be disclosed or furnished under this Act or the rules made there
under.]
[125A.] Penalty for filing false affidavit, etc.A candidate

who himself or through his proposer, with intent to be elected
in an election, (i) fails to furnish information relating to subsection (1) of section 33A; or (ii) give false information which
he knows or has reason to believe to be false; or (iii) conceals
any information, in his nomination paper delivered under subsection (1) of section 33 or in his affidavit which is required to
be delivered under sub-section (2) of section 33A, as the case
may be, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law for the time being in force, be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or
with fine, or with both.].
The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961

The conduct of election rules was brought I the year 1961 to
streamline the procedure to conduct election in proper manner.
Though recently citizens attention has gone to section 49 O of
the conduct of election Rules 1961, where in the person my
casts his ballot, if he or her does not wants to casts his vote
after filing form 17 .
NONE OF THE ABOVE OPTION

"None
of the above" is a proposed voting option in India that

would allow voters who support none of the candidates
available to them to register an official vote of "none of the
above", which is not currently allowed under India election
regulation.[8] The Election Commission of India told the
Supreme Court in 2009 that it wished to offer the voter a None

of the above button on voting machines; the government,
however, has generally opposed this option.
RIGHT TO REJECT
The Representation of The People Act of 1951 also does not
mention the right to reject specifically the rule 49-O of the
Conduct of elections rules, 1961 describes the procedure to be
followed when a valid voter decides not to cast his vote, and
decides to record this fact. But many social and political
bigwigs have made statements fro time in media regarding its
efficacy or its negative impact on the political system. Going
strictly by the golden rule of interpretation of Legal
Jurisprudence, if we peruse Section 16 of the General Clauses
Act, 1897, the power to make an appointment shall also include
the power to dismiss the person so appointed. Thus the power
to elect should also include the power to recall.
The Supreme Court in its recent judgments has shown a strong
wave of judicial activism by which the public demand has been
given priority in decision making. A wider ambit has been given
to the fundamental rights and several of the Directive
Principles have been lifted to give them the character of
fundamental rights. The day is not far when the right to recall
will also be included within the wide ambit of the Fundamental
Rights in the
Constitution of India or rather the need for its implementation
will dictate its inclusion.
What is Rule 49 0?
The rule 49-O is a rule in The Conduct of Elections Rules,
196143 of India, which governs elections in the country. It
describes the procedure to be followed when a valid voter
decides not to cast his vote, and decides to record this fact.
The apparent purpose of this section is to prevent the election
fraud or the misuse of votes.
49-O is it Negative / Neutral Voting
The Commission has received proposals from a very large
number of individuals and organizations that there should be a
provision enabling a voter to reject all the candidates in the

constituency if he does not find them suitable. In the voting
using the conventional ballot paper and ballot boxes, an elector
can drop the ballot paper without marking his vote against any
of the candidates, if he chooses so. However, in the voting
using the Electronic Voting Machines, such a facility is not
available to the voter. Although, Rule 49 O of the Conduct of
Election Rules, 1961 provides that an elector may refuse to
vote after he has been identified and necessary entries made
in the Register of Electors and the marked copy of the electoral
roll, the secrecy of voting is not protected here in as much as
the polling officials and the polling agents in the polling station
get to know about the decision of such a voter.
The Commission recommends that the law should be amended
to specifically provide for negative / neutral voting. For this
purpose, Rules 22 and 49B of the Conduct of Election Rules,
1961 may be suitably amended adding a provision that in the
ballot paper and the particulars on the ballot unit, in the
column relating to names of candidates, after the entry relating
to the last candidate, there shall be a column None of the
above, to enable a voter to reject all the candidates, if he
chooses so. Such a proposal was earlier made by the
Commission in 2001.
THE RIGHT OF RECALL

The Recall is a term used to describe a process whereby the
electorate can petition to trigger a vote on the suitability of an
existing elected representative to continue in office. The exact
process and form of a recall election varies between those
countries which use it but in essence it gives voters the
opportunity to remove representatives whom they feel are not
doing a good enough job. It is important to note that in most
cases the recall rescinds a previous decision by the electorate
(to elect the office holder in the first
instance) rather than putting new choices before the electorate
on the same ballot.1 The level of elected representative
susceptible to recall varies as does the signature threshold
required on the petition (i.e. the number of signatories has to
reach a certain percentage of the total electorate to trigger a
recall election).
Recall may be called an instrument of direct democracy, which

reflects the theory that representatives are merely the
delegates of electors, morally bound by the preferences of
constituents. With recall, the security of a representative's
position is subject to constituency approval. The recall gained a
firm footing in the USAs politics with democratic ideals that
burst forth from the American Revolution. Some of the States in
the USA incorporated recall provisions into their State
legislations as a method of controlling their elected
representatives. The recall provisions were mainly concerned
with the power of the representatives who served the States in
the National General Congress.Seventeenth and Eighteenth
centurys version of recall involved the removal of an official by
another elected body; which is quite different from the modern
day concept of recallthat stipulates a different relationship
between the elected representatives and general public. The
right of an electorate to recall its representatives is a way of
ensuring the accountability of the elected legislator towards
the people. The recall of the elected
representatives to a legislature, Central or State, is considered
to be a democratic method by which the citizens are vested the
power to remove or in effect de-elect a legislator before the
expiry term of office. This power is an important instrument in
any democratic set up as it allows the voters to
scrutinize the performance of the persons whom they are
electing as their representative.This process of recall is
beneficial as it ensures delivery of services and fulfillment of
the promises made during an election campaign by a
candidate. It becomes the prerogative of the constituent to
decide whether a nonperforming representative should be
allowed to continue in office for a full term or not, as the
government exchequer has to bear the costs of the poor
performance, which in fact, is the money of the masses. The
right to recall also serves as a check on whether the peoples
representative is misusing his/her position.
Countries in which Recall is permitted

The right of recall is used in comparatively few countries
throughout the world, with the most well known examples
being certain states of the United States of America, six of the
26 cantons in Switzerland, Venezuela, the Philippines and the
Province of British Columbia in Canada. It is also used in South

Korea, Taiwan and Argentina amongst others.
The United States of America
Recall was first adopted in the US in 1903 when voters
approved a new city charter for Los Angeles 7 but recall of
state officials is now permitted in the following 19 states: The
state level recall attempts in the US have been largely
ineffectual with only two Governors being successfully removed
from office in this way. These were Lynn J. Frazier (North
Dakota) in 1921 and Gray Davis (California) in 2003. The latter
case led to the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Out of 32
attempts in California since 1911 to recall its Governor the
election of Schwarzenegger in 2003 was the only successful
one. In 1988 voters filed enough signatures for Evan Mecham,
the Governor of Arizona, to be made the subject of a recall
election but he was impeached by the states House of
Representatives before the date of the scheduled recall
election.
Switzerland
The availability of literature on Swiss recalls procedures are
limited. Although Switzerland does not employ recall at the
federal level, six of the 26 cantons in Switzerland have recall
provisions for their cantonal parliaments. As with regard to all
other recall systems a certain number of voters must sign the
recall petition in order to petition of recall to proceed but in the
case of Switzerland it does not appear that this number is
based on a percentage of the electorate. like, in Schaffhauses
1,000 signatures are required on thepetition of recall but in
Ticino 15,000 signatures are required for recall petition.
However,as of November 2003, recall had not been used to
successfully recall an elected representative.
Philippines
The country like Philippines also has provision for recall. The
recall elections were temporarily suspended on 13 November
2008 due to funding concerns. This was lifted after the gap of
three years on 29 January 2009. If the recall petition reaches
the signature threshold of 25% (of registered voters in the local
government unit concerned) a single election is triggered. This
can effectively be seen as a by-election with all the candidates

names on the ballot including the incumbent. If the incumbent
is successful in gaining the most votes then the recall has
failed and they retain their position. If, however, another
candidate wins the vote then they are duly elected.
Venezuela
The recall mechanism was introduced into Venezuelan law in
1999 under the new Constitution drafted by the National
Constituent Assembly and sanctioned by the electorate in a
referendum. Venezuelas implementation of recall allows the
elected head of state to be subject to it. This was most clearly
demonstrated, when President Chavez had to fight a recall
election on 15 August 2004. Despite opposition allegations of
fraud,President Chavez survived with close to 60% of the vote.
Uganda
In Uganda a member of parliament may be recalled from office
on any of the grounds9:
physical or mental incapacity rendering that member incapable
of performing the functions of the office; or misconduct or
misbehaviour likely to bring hatred, ridicule, contempt or
disrepute to the office; or persistent deserting of the electorate
without reasonable cause.
British Columbia
The Canadian province of British Columbia adopted recall in
1995 through the Recall and Initiative Act 1995. This gave
voters the power to remove their Member of the Legislative
Assembly between elections. Under the Recall and Initiative Act
1995, a successful recall petition triggers the removal of a
Member of the Legislative Assembly. If the Chief Electoral
Officer determines that a recall petition has a sufficient number
of valid signatures and meets the requirements of the Act, the
Member ceases to hold office and the seat becomes vacant. A
by-election must be called within 90 days.
Can the elected person being challenged stand for reelection?
The legal framework must make clear whether or not a person

who is the subject of a recall vote can stand for re-election.
There appear to be few arguments to support a 105 design in
which a recalled person is eligible to stand for re-election, since
this would appear to undermine the entire point of the process;
a situation in which a recalled person is subsequently reelected would appear to render the process an expensive
waste of time. The decision on whether to allow the elected
person to stand on the ballot for a successor may also be
affected by whether or not the recall vote and vote for a
successor are held simultaneously or separately. There may be
more of a case for allowing an incumbent to stand on the ballot
for a successor where the votes take place simultaneously,
because the incumbent has not yet been recalled by the
voters. Is there an election to appoint a successor to a recalled
incumbent?
The outline above assumes that, should electors vote to recall
an incumbent from his term of office, they will also vote on who
should succeed him. However, this is not always the case. A
design feature of the Venezuelan recall mechanism is that
although a person can still be recalled during the whole of his
term of office, a successful recall after a certain point
automatically leads to the installation of office of another
specified person. Were the recall vote in respect of President
Chavez of Venezuela to have taken place just four days later
than it did, a vote in favour of the recall would have led to the
installation of the Vice-President as President. The logic for this
cut-off point may be an issue of timing, although the next
Presidential election in Venezuela is not scheduled until 2007.
Requirements for holding a recall vote

The legal structure for the recall tool must specify how a group
of recall proponents can actually achieve a recall vote. The
generally accepted means of doing so is to require proponents
to gather a specified number of signatures within a specified
period of time. Clearly, the lower the number of signatures
required and the longer the period of time allowed collecting
them, the more likely it is that recall proponents will be able to
achieve a recall vote.
Pros and Cons of right to recall in Indian Context

Recall has been a matter of debate all over the World Recall is
a process designed to enable voters dissatisfied with an
elected official to replace him before the expiry of his term of
office. Recall has been a matter of debate all over the World.
The recall device has also the potential to encourage the
citizens to keep themselves abreast of contemporary public
issues in order to monitor the conduct of their elected
representatives. The recall maintain that it provides a way for
citizens to retain control over elected officials who are not
representing the best interests of their constituents, or who are
unresponsive or incompetent. This view holds that an elected
representative is an agent, a servant and not a master.
The Lok Sabha Speaker Mr.Somnath Chatterjee, while
delivering the EMS
Namboodiripad Memorial Lecture on democratic consolidation:
the Indian experience in Thiruvanthapuram recommended the
introduction of right to call of elected representatives in India.
He said "It is time for us to look for devices such as recall to
ensure accountability of the members of democratic
institutions at all levels, before the common man gets totally
disillusioned with the prevailing system. The performance and
the functioning of the parliament as well as its members would
improve if people who elected their representatives to voice
their grievances watched the parliamentary proceedings
regularly. But, it is not such an easy thing to be resolved in our
parliamentary democracyas all the political parties have to
arrive at a consensus, which may be a difficult task," 20
It is also argued that it can lead to an excess of democracy,
where the threat of a recall election lessens the independence
of elected officials. It undermines the principle of electing good
officials and giving them a chance to govern until the next
election, and that it can lead to abuses by well-financed special
interest groups. Country such as India is not in a position to
hold election so frequently.
Why a person is allowed to contest elections from
more than one Constituencies ?21
20
5th June 2008 Indian Express New Delhi
21 By Amit Das Dated:8th January 2014(www.Quora.com)

It is not the Constitution of India that allows a person to

contest elections to the Lok Sabha (or even, for that matter,
the Vidhan Sabha of a State), but the Representation of the
People Act, 1951 (RPA), which provides for the conduct of
elections to the Houses of Parliament and to the House or
Houses of the Legislature of each State. This is governed
by section
33(7) of
the RPA.
Further, section 70 of the RPA says that if a person is elected
to more than one seat in either House of Parliament or in the
House or either House of the Legislature of a State (some
states have a Legislative Council or Vidhan Parishad as well,
along with the Vidhan Sabha), then he/she can only hold on to
one of the seats that he/she won in the election.
It would be difficult to ascertain the nature of the legislative
intent that went into the passing of this statute, but what it
does is allows candidates to fall back upon a contingency if
they are to lose the election to a seat. Honestly, there is
nothing wrong with this provision, per se, but the
implementation has always been questionable with numerous
candidates contesting from two constituencies. If the candidate
manages to win from both constituencies, then section 70 of
the RPA becomes applicable, and the vacating of the one of the
two seats won by the candidate results in bye-election for the
vacated seat, which can be a tedious process, one which is,
needless to say, expensive, as the money that is spent for this
is taxpayer money. This brings me to the secondary question,
which asks whether politicians have misused this provision. The
answer
to
that
is
in
the
affirmative,
sadly.
The problem with the change to any statute is that it is, at the
end of the day, discussed by the elected representatives
themselves, and as we have already seen with the debate
about opening up political party funds to RTI, the
representatives never allow for such a change to go through,
however
proper
itmaybe,inprinciple.
The Election Commission of India has, on many occasions,
proposed a change to this provision. In the Background Paper
on Electoral Reforms that was prepared by the CoreCommittee on Electoral Reforms, a part of the Legislative
Department of the Ministry of Law and Justice in
collaboration with the Election Commission and released in
2010,
the Election
Commission has expressly
recommended restricting the number of seats from which a
person can contest from in the elections to one because, as

said above, the consequence of the person winning both seats
from which he/she contests for is a bye-election for the seat
which he/she will ultimately vacate, and this will involve
avoidable
labour
and
expenditure.
The Election Commission has also, in fact, proposed that if
this provision was not changed, then if a person contested from
two seats, he/she should bear the cost of the bye-election to
the seat that he/she decides to vacate in the event both seats
are
won
by
the
person
as
a surcharge.
Both these proposals, whenever made, were shot down by the
incumbent Government, and so this provision stands as it is,
with taxpayer money being used to conduct the bye-election
when the candidate wins both seats. Its a pity, but thats just
how it is.
Does
Political Parties come under the ambit
of RTI Act
Still an unanswered question
Status in 2013
Political parties come within ambit of RTI Act: CIC 22
In a landmark judgment, the Central Information Commission
(CIC) has ruled that political parties come within the ambit of
the Right to Information Act. The judgment has far reaching
implications on the functioning of political parties.
The CIC order said: We have no hesitation in concluding that
INC/AICC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP have been
substantially financed by the Central government and,
therefore, they are held to be public authorities under Section
2(h) of the RTI Act. The full bench of the commission,
comprising Chief Information Commissioner Satyananda Mishra
and Information Commissioners M.L. Sharma and Annapurna
Dixit, argued: It would be odd to argue that transparency is
good for all State organs but not so good for political parties,
which, in reality, control all the vital organs of the State.
22 THE HINDU; Dated: June 3, 2013
The criticality of the role being played by these political

parties in our democratic set-up and the nature of duties
performed by them also point towards their public character,
bringing them in the ambit of Section 2(h). The constitutional
and legal provisions discussed herein above also point towards
their character as public authorities, the commission held.
The order came after activists Subhash Chandra Aggarwal and
Anil Bairwal of the Association of Democratic Reforms
approached the CIC, requesting that political parties be
declared as public authorities.
They had asked the six political parties to make available
details of voluntary financial contributions received by them
and the donors names and addresses.
The political parties, with the exception of the CPI, however,
refused to give away information, claiming that they do not
come under the RTI Act.
The commission then directed the presidents and general
secretaries of the six political parties to designate CPIOs and
the Appellate Authorities at their headquarters in six weeks
time. The CPIOs so appointed will respond to the RTI
applications extracted in this order in four weeks time.
The CIC also directed the political parties to comply with the
provisions of mandatory proactive disclosure by putting those
details on their websites.
While rejecting the arguments made by counsel of the political
parties of their being out of the ambit of the RTI, the CIC
referred to a Supreme Court judgment, which said that the
little man of this country would have the basic elementary right
to know full particulars of a candidate who is to represent him
in Parliament where laws to bind his liberty and property may
be enacted.
The people of India must know the source of expenditure
incurred by political parties and by the candidates in the
process of election, the CIC concluded.
Status in 2014
17 months on, political parties ignore RTI ruling 23

They have neither sought review of CIC ruling nor challenged it
in court
Seventeen months after the Central Information Commission
ruled that the Right to Information Act applied to six national
political parties, none of them has complied with the Act or
appealed against it.
A full Bench of the commission, comprising Information
Commissioners Vijai Sharma, Sharat Sabharwal and Manjula
Prasher, had posted a hearing on the parties non-compliance
with its order for Friday afternoon, but none of them appeared
before it. The commission heard the RTI activists and reserved
its order for a later date.
While, the BJP has not replied to the commissions notice on
non-compliance with its order, the Congress had in March
submitted that Parliament was yet to take a final decision on
amending the RTI Act; that Bill however lapsed with the 15th
Lok Sabha. In October, the Congress said it disagreed with the
order.
The two Communist parties the CPI(M) and the CPI
submitted that they disagreed with the CICs order, but did not
take any legal action against it. On Friday evening,
spokespersons for neither the Congress nor the BJP were able
to tell The Hindu why they did not attend the hearing.
Representatives of the two parties said leaders were busy with
Assembly elections.
Open defiance
The non-compliance and the open defiance has had, and
continues to have, a very serious detrimental effect on the
state of democracy in the country at large, Jagdeep Chhokar,
co-founder of Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), said
at Fridays hearing.
23 THE HINDU, Dated: November 222014

Seeking exemplary compensation, Mr. Chhokar asked the CIC

to direct that political parties should pay five per cent of their
declared annual income, a sum of Rs. 44 crore, into the Prime
Ministers Relief Fund.
RTI activist Subhash Agarwal appealed to the Bench to abolish
subsidised land allotment to these parties, free air-time on
official media, government accommodation and Income Tax
exemptions.
In June 2013, a full Bench of the CIC ruled on complaints filed
by Mr. Agarwal and the ADR, seeking information about the
disclosure of financial accounts and funding of political parties,
since six national parties enjoyed substantial public funding
and the nature of their duties pointed towards their public
character, they were public authorities and the RTI Act applied
to them.
It directed them to appoint information officers, dispose of RTI
applications addressed to them and comply fully with the Act.
Status in 2015
Defying RTI undermining Democracy 201524
For two years, national political parties have defied the RTI Act
that they themselves passed. They have not sought legal
remedy either by appealing against the CIC order declaring
them to be Public Authorities. If lawmakers defy the law in this
fashion, it sets a bad precedent. Political parties should be
more accountable if they break the law, not less
Six national parties in India, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP),
the Indian National Congress (INC), the Nationalist Congress
Party (NCP), the Communist Party of India (CPI), the Communist
Party of India (Marxist) CPM and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP),
have refused to comply with the Central Information
24 THE HINDU, Dated: March 25 2015
Commission (CIC) order of 2013 declaring them as Public

Authorities. On March 16, 2015, the CIC passed another order
which in effect said that it was helpless in the matter and would
not impose penalty or enforce compliance of its 2013 order.
Earlier, it had issued summons on three occasions to the
parties concerned to present their arguments, all of which were
ignored. The new order says that penalty can only be imposed
on the Public Information Officer (PIO) and since the political
parties have not appointed them, no action can be taken.
The contention and reality
For two years, these national parties have defied a law which
they themselves passed. Nor have they sought legal remedy by
appealing in court against the earlier CIC Order declaring them
to be Public Authorities. If such a situation is allowed to
continue, it raises questions. For instance if a nongovernmental organisation (NGO), company or individual defies
the law, there are legal consequences. But if lawmakers and
political parties defy the law, what are the consequences? Let
us recall that political parties come to power based on the
peoples mandate and then run governments. They in turn
control peoples money, collected in the form of taxes and
natural resources. Parties are a vital part of democracy and are
trustees of peoples resources. Therefore, they should be more
responsible and accountable if they break the law, not less.
Before we go into the legal technicalities, we need to look at
the spirit behind these issues. Political parties contend that
they are not under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI)
and hence do not need to comply with the CIC order. They have
a right to that opinion. However, there are some laws that
citizens may feel are unjust. For instance, the cyber law [a
section of which has since been struck down by the Supreme
Court] that is usually used against any citizen who puts out
material that someone powerful considers to be offensive. Or
the anti-sedition law. Can a citizen defy such a law and get
away with it? He or she could be arrested immediately. The
only remedy for him or her is to go to court. So, are we about to
create a situation where political parties can defy the law and
get away with it, without even bothering to challenge the CIC
order in court? Democracy cannot thrive when lawmakers
break the law. Public respect for political parties is already at an
all-time low and such actions by them will only strengthen this
further. Faith in law and order, and where the weak and the
powerful are supposed to be treated equal is also very low. This
further undermines democracy. Meanwhile, the new
government has not yet appointed a CIC nearly a year after
coming to power. This is an effective way of scuttling the RTI
Act.
Remedies
Coming to the specific issue, there are at least two opposing
views. One says that the CIC is indeed helpless to enforce
compliance of its order as there is a lacuna in the law. The
other point of view is that the CIC can impose penalties on
party office-bearers in the absence of a PIO. Earlier Supreme
Court judgments have said that when legal powers are given, it
is implied that the power to enforce it is also given. Else, the
Act itself ends up becoming meaningless. The matter is very
likely going to end up in court and with a judgment that will
have far-reaching consequences.
There are a few possible remedies. One is for political parties to
be more responsible and follow the CIC order or have the
courage to challenge it in court. No individual party is willing to
challenge the order since it would go against public opinion.
Another remedy is to amend the Act to clarify the
consequences of defying a CIC order and arm the CIC with
explicit powers. A third is for the court to give a judgment. It
will be very difficult for Parliament to pass an amendment to
exempt only political parties from the RTI while retaining other
organisations under it. It would be struck down as being
unconstitutional as an earlier judgment in fact did to an
amendment to the Representation of the People Act (RP) Act
which exempt candidates from disclosing their assets.
Why scrutiny?
If the CIC cannot enforce its orders it means that the RTI Act is
effectively null and void. But the real issue is not only about
whether the CIC can or cannot enforce its orders. It is also
about whether political parties should be under the RTI. People
also ask whether companies and NGOs should come under the
RTI. The spirit behind the Act is that organisations that use or
control public resources need to be accountable to the public

and open to scrutiny. The tortuous, legal red herrings that
parties use which includes the fundamental right of freedom
of association do not in anyway alter the fact that they
control crores of tax money when in power. No other category
of organisations has that power. Applying this, the political
parties definitely need to be under the RTI. Companies and
NGOs do not have the power that parties have and often
enough do not even use taxpayer money. But they should also
accept being under the RTI in keeping with the spirit of a
modern, open, democratic society.
About transparency
If we dig deeper, the real question is this: what are parties
afraid of? Their apparent objection that minutes of internal
meetings of a political party that discuss party strategy or
suitability of candidates for ticket distribution for example
cannot be made public, are excuses. It can easily be dealt with
by suitable exemptions which are in any case available under
the existing RTI Act. The real fear is exposure of their finances,
as some admit in private. Their declared income does not
disclose the source of about 75 per cent of their donations.
Their undisclosed sources of income is anybodys guess. Parties
are fighting to keep this a secret, fighting for their very survival
as they see it. This is a short-sighted view as the recent Delhi
elections have shown. Perhaps, voters are changing and
appreciate transparency more than big money campaigns. If
party election strategists can understand this or if entrenched,
vested interests within parties can be removed, change is
possible. This can only do good to the party in the long run.
We are at a critical point in our democracy. Today, money plays
an important role in winning elections. If that changes, then
people become more important than money. Let us make no
mistake about what is at stake here: real democracy where
political parties are not mere vote gathering machines, but are
vibrant, democratic organisations that are truly representative
of the people, by the people and, most importantly, for the
people.
CONCLUSION
RTI is a powerful tool that can deliver significant social benefits. It can
provide a strong support to democracy and promote good governance,
by empowering the citizes ability to participate effectively and hold
government officials accountable. Rather than just providing
information, RTI Act in most of the countries has served to be an
effective watchdog ensuring all those coming in purview of the Act to
work in accordance with rules and regulations, without any
irregularities. However, stricter implementation of this law requires not
only political will but also active civil societies, RTI activists and few key
democratic features, such as respect for the rule of law. Currently, the
RTI Act in India is passing through a decisive phase, much more needs
to be done to facilitate its growth and development. Mere protest against
the lack of implementation of this law alone is not sufficient, one needs
to encourage this initiative taken, for the law to grow and mature.
Talking about the electoral reforms and Right to Information has not
significantly made a big change as the right to information aims to make
the politics transparent and zero criminalisation in politics and make all
the information available in the public domain. Furthermore, very
important steps has been taken by the Electoral Reforms Committee but
has has not able to achieve the goal as there are many political parties
which refuse to provide information as they deny that they come under
the ambit of Right to Inforemation. The last 244th Commissions Report
has made significant change as by introducing None of the above option
which was used by more than 30,000 voters in 2014 General Elections
moreover, there is still ambiguity on Right of Recall and Right to Reject
as demanded by Anna Hazare.
At last most important is that how much the political leaders are honest
to the public who voyted them and showed their trust by giving them
vote. As it has been very prominently seen in the Delhi General
Elections 2014 that Common has the biggest power as they chose Arvind
Kejriwal as their Chief Minister as he promised the people to provide
basic eminities to each and every household and most important agenda
was to make the System Corruption free and zero-tolerance towars the
corrupted people.

Right To Information Act-Consti Project

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Right To Information Act-Consti Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

-Special reference to ELECTORAL

{IV.SEMESTER PROJECT} RTI Act, Special Reference to Electoral ReformsPage 1

or the other. International experience shows that it can also be

The Need For The Right To Information

of all human beings. The right to information forms the crucial

opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, log

Definition: Right To Information

Right to Information under the Act

of inference and/or making of assumptions; or to interpret

Right to Information Act as a Fundamental

of within 30 days provided that where information sought for

Meaning of Elections in India

Commission of India. All members of the Lok Sabha, except two

Indian electoral system

twelve nominated members are usually an eclectic mix of

Indian political parties

Party achieving a simple majority on its own by securing 282

There has always been so much of controversy regarding

{IV.SEMESTER PROJECT} RTI Act, Special Reference to Electoral ReformsPage 9

However, if the member has taken prior permission, or is

THE ELECTORAL REFORMS

(over 50%) has cases that could attract penalties of

{IV.SEMESTER PROJECT} RTI Act, Special Reference to Electoral ReformsPage 11

Various Spheres of Important

The Need for Reform

Democracy as a form of governance was the central plinth of

It is beyond the pale of reasonable controversy that if there

Thus, inherent in the model of representative government

the highest standards of integrity, but independently that the

candidates had 40 or more such cases and 5 candidates had 50

MLA has 36 criminal cases pending including 14 cases related

The Law Commission of India, in its 170th report quoted in

principles in its internal working cannot be expected to respect

regulating some of the internal affairs of political parties in

D. EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Legally, the prevention of the entry of criminals into politics is

undischarged insolvent, if he is not a citizen of India and if he is

However, it is clear from the above account of the spread of

The judiciary has sought to curb this menace of criminalisation

{IV.SEMESTER PROJECT} RTI Act, Special Reference to Electoral ReformsPage 20

jurisprudence relating to the question of de-criminalisation of

fundamental right to free speech and expression and hindered

In Vineet Narain v. Union of India15 a case concerning the

the Prevention of Corruption Act such that sanction for

disqualifications. A brief survey of such reports is undertaken in

paper under Section 4A in the RPA. This suggestion has

The Election Commission of India has also made several

presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty; nevertheless it

Recently the Justice J.S. Verma Committee Report on

proposed Schedule 1. It would then provide that a person in

DISQUALIFICATION AT THE STAGE OF FRAMING OF

{IV.SEMESTER PROJECT} RTI Act, Special Reference to Electoral ReformsPage 26

legislators, the number of convicted MPs and MLAs continues to

The increasing presence of persons with criminal backgrounds

CONSEQUENCES UPOIN FILING OF FALSE

following information is required under Form 26 read with Rule

iv. Details of movable and immovable assets the candidate,

{IV.SEMESTER PROJECT} RTI Act, Special Reference to Electoral ReformsPage 29

Pursuant to this judgment, the Election Commission issued

directives issued by the Election Commission pursuant to the

the Election Commission ordered its earlier directive on the

the fact that nomination papers could not be rejected for