- The Big Picture: What’s AAP
- A year later, the tweak: Desh to Dilli
- Bus from Burari laden with volunteers and hope
- Rare day out for AAP families
- Riot of support for AAP in communal hot spots
- Hunt on for CM house, will not accept Z-plus security
- No word from high command, Delhi Congress in a paralysis
- Latest News
- Second time at Ramlila Maidan: Hope overrides their doubts
- Kejriwal has no portfolio, will keep an eye on others
- In sea of white caps, BJP troika plans to be ‘forceful opposition’
- MP, MLA see Punjab as the next AAP stop
- A year later, the tweak: Desh to Dilli
- Arvind Kejriwal repeats his advice to sting the corrupt, asks police to act against ‘goondagardi’
- Proud that one of our volunteers has become Delhi CM: Anna Hazare
- Arvind Kejriwal not to keep any portfolio
- Now an Aam Aadmi Party Cola by beverage-maker inspired by Arvind Kejriwal’s party
- New chief minister Arvind Kejriwal holds meetings at Delhi Secretariat
- Cong’s Ajay Maken blames Sheila Dikshit for Delhi polls debacle
- Left, right, AAP
Why allow those in jail to contest polls, SC asks govt
The Supreme Court on Friday questioned the government as to why those behind the bars should be allowed to contest elections, and sought justification over an amendment in the law allowing this.
The pertinent provision in the Representation of the People Act was amended in September last year to overcome a court verdict that barred those in lawful custody from running for political offices.
A bench led by Justice H L Dattu issued notices to the Centre and others on a petition, challenging the validity of the amendment in the law, and sought their responses in four weeks.
The petition, filed by advocate M L Sharma, was last year declined to be entertained by the SC, which asked him to first approach a High Court. Subsequently, Sharma moved the Delhi High Court, which nixed his PIL saying barring a person in lawful custody from contesting elections could leave the door open for practice of “vendetta politics”.
The HC noted that such a prohibition on the ground of de-criminalisation of politics was an instance of a remedy being worse than the disease. It said the Indian criminal justice system was based on the principle of “innocent till proven guilty”, and hence undertrials could not be put on par with those held guilty, for the purpose of closing their right to contest.
Sharma hence came back to the SC against the dismissal and the court admitted his plea this time. He has contended in his petition that the amendment to the Act, made by Parliament in September last year, was unconstitutional and aimed to benefit only the political parties that tend to flex muscle power through leaders with criminal antecedents.
Challenging the amendment, Sharma also pleaded for a stay on the operation of the amending provision. He said that not staying the operation of the law would cause several criminals contest election and win.
The amendment redefined the term “elector” in the Act, saying a person would not cease to be one if he cannot vote because of his being in lawful custody. In its July 2013 verdict, the SC held that a person who cannot vote because he is jailed is not an “elector” under the Act, and therefore, he is disqualified from contesting elections.
The Centre had filed a review against the July 10 verdict too but it was rendered infructuous since there was an amendment in the Act. However, while disposing of the review plea, the SC had clearly said the questions regarding constitutional validity of the amendment can be examined separately.
‘Can’t stop post-poll tie-ups’
The Supreme Court Friday dismissed a PIL demanding to restrain politicians and political parties from forging post-poll alliances.
A bench led Chief Justice of India P Sathasivam said the issue was entirely political and there was no need for a court of law to go into it.
“Can we direct political parties not to join one group or other? This is not a matter to be agitated before the court. Haw can we restrain parties from joining one group or other?,” it said. The court was hearing a PIL filed by one Rajender Dutt Vasudev, who challenged the legal and constitutional validity of post-poll alliances among political parties, contending the electors had no idea of such a possibility when they cast their votes.