Dated: 26.09.2013
To,
Hon’ble Sh.Pranab Mukherjee
The President of India
Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi-110004
Subject: Representation on
Representation of Peoples (Amendment) Bill, 2013 (“Ordinance”)
Dear Sir,
This is in reference to the
captioned subject matter wherein Government of India in its Cabinet meeting has
decided to negate the Judgment dated 10.07.2013 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Chief Election Commissioner Vs Jan Chaukidar & Others (Civil
Appeal No.3040-3041 of 2004) by promulgating the aforesaid Ordinance. In
the said Judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court has declared that a person who has no
right to vote by virtue of sub-section (5) of Section 62 of the Said Act, is
not elector and is therefore, not qualified to contest the election to either
house of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly of a State.
It is correct that under Article
123 of the Constitution of India, Hon’ble President of India has power to
promulgate the ordinance if the President is satisfied that the circumstances
exist which render it necessary for him to do so, however, in this
particular Ordinance, there is no such circumstances which render it necessary
for Hon’ble President to take immediate action by promulgating the aforesaid
Ordinance. During the Constituent Assembly debate various Noble Souls had raised
objections on continuing with this power by giving the example of USA and
Britain which does not have such power, on which Mr. Naziruddin' Ahmad[i] had
stated that:-
“....The
Honourable Member seems to think that in a Free India there should be no such
laws, but we are going to have democratic independence and democracy means rule
of law. The Honourable Member suffered from the nightmare of the, misuse of the
Ordinances, of which we have had enough experience during the last war. I think
that nightmare should go. The power will now be exercised by our elected men
and our chosen representatives and they would no doubt act on the advice of
responsible ministers. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that they would not
abuse their powers. In these circumstances, I should suppose that they
should have the power. But the question is really the proper application of
the power or its misapplication. I think the existence of the power is a
necessity so as to enable the Government to run on smoothly. What would happen
when the legislatures are not in session and when there is a grave emergency?
As to the kinds of emergency, there are an unlimited variety which may arise. A
war or a mutiny or anything of that kind may arise. Flood shortage and other
things may arise. Then the legislature may not be in session. So, the President
should have this power which may be employed usefully for the good of the
community. in these circumstances, I should submit that the existence of the power
is a great necessity and I have no reason to suppose that they would be
misapplied: rather they would be applied for our benefit.
Dr.Ambedkar during the debate on
this provision had stated before the Assembly that:
“...My
submission to the house is that it is not difficult to imagine cases where the
powers conferred by the ordinary law existing at any particular moment may be
deficient to deal with a situation which may suddenly and immediately arise.
What is the executive to do? The executive has got a new situation arisen,
which it must deal with ex hypothesi it has not got the power to deal
with that in the existing code of law. The emergency must be dealt with, and it
seems to me that the only solution is to confer upon the President the Power to
promulgate a law which will enable the executive to deal with that particular
situation because it cannot resort to the ordinary process of law because,
again ex hypothesi, the legislature is not in session. Therefore it
seems to me that fundamentally there is no objection to the provisions
contained in article 102”.
Therefore, the Noble Souls were
of the view that their future generations will not abuse the provision and work
within the framework of the Constitution and toward achievement of the Rule of
Law, with these objectives in their mind they had burnt their mid night oil and
sacrificed their lives.
Sir, India is a largest democratic
country and popular in the world so the survival of the democracy in our
Country is in the interest of entire democratic world, though in India,
democratic view and democracy has put its foot strongly even though, Our Country
is going through a very tumultuous period which some time erupted in agitation
and movement. The Will of the People or its Citizen is supreme in Democracy,
thus, if will of the people get polluted, it is neither good for Governance nor
for the democracy. The Will of the People comes through election when they
elect their representative to enact the law and in turn they perform the duties
for the welfare of the Citizen and Country, however, due to criminalisation of
the Politics these objectives and will of the People is getting suppressed,
against which voices have been raised by various Intellectuals for stoppage of
criminalization of the Politics and Election reforms.
The Judgment which has been
passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court is one step towards this goal however it seems
that Government of India to save some of their Associates for their personal benefits
is moving this ordinance which is neither good for the Will of the People nor
for the democracy. There is consensus among the people of this country who does
not want criminals in the Politics. These Criminals do not convey the Will/Thoughts
of the People of their Constituency from where they got elected.
If we take example of a
constituency where total electors were 1413535 and Winner secured 465713,
however voter exercised their rights were 780445 (55.2%), which means he
represents only 32.95% of the People rest 67.05% are either against him or
silent.
The argument put forth in support
of Ordinance is also very feeble because a Judge even though at lower hierarchy
after applying his judicial mind convict a person, such person do not have
legal as well as moral rights to represent people of this country. Further such
person is debarred from contesting election or voting only after pronouncement
of Judgment on accusation against him and not on filing of the FIR/Charge Sheet
or framing of Charges so political advantage by rivals is totally imaginary and
can be ruled out.
Sir, People of this country is
very tolerant but tolerance has a limit which some time get exploded in the
form of agitation and movements which had been seen by this Government in past
also. Thus, before summing up my request I would like to quote a statement of
Martin Luther King who said that “The Silence of Good Man is more dangerous
than the brutality of bad Man” so I craves Hon’ble President to consider the
vision of our freedom fighters and political thinkers before exercising his
power under Article 123 of the Constitution of India.
Jai Hind!
Vishnu P.S. Langawat
An Ordinary Citizen of this
Country
Comments