Decriminalisation of politics

This is thoroughly unsatisfactory. The Chief Election Commissioner in its proposals of July 2004 on electoral reforms has pointed out several instances of persons charged with heinous crimes contesting elections, pending their trial, and even getting elected in a large number of cases. A trial can be inordinately delayed with repeated adjournments asked for by the lawyers and readily granted by the courts.

The Election Commission has proposed an amendment to the effect that any person who is accused of an offence punishable by imprisonment for five years or more should be disqualified from contesting an election even when the trial is pending, provided charges have been framed against the person by a competent court. The Law Commission had also made a similar recommendation in 2000. This proposal is opposed by some on the ground that a person is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty. What is overlooked is that by providing for disqualification in such cases, no criminal punishment is imposed on the candidate. The candidate’s right to carry on any business or profession is not restricted, unless politics is considered a money-making professional activity. It is only the burning desire of the candidate to serve the people which is affected.

Moreover, it is settled law that the right to contest elections is neither a common law right nor a fundamental right. It is merely a statutory right and therefore can be regulated by statute. There is nothing unreasonable in such a provision because the disqualification operates when a candidate is accused of serious criminal offences and the court is prima facie satisfied about the candidate’s involvement and has consequently framed charges. This is very different from disqualification arising from registration of an offence by filing a FIR, which can be and often is politically motivated. True, motivated political cases may be filed and charges may be framed illegally, as happened during the Emergency. In that case the aggrieved person can approach a superior court to have them quashed.

The proposal is not fool-proof, but in view of the current political scenario and in the larger interests of purity of elections and decriminalisation of politics, such a disqualifying provision is necessary. Extraordinary situations warrant extraordinary solutions.

Superstitions

Superstition more than religion apparently regulates the behaviour of our people. Some superstitions are common, like avoiding the number 13 seat in a train or an aircraft or not backing a horse because his number is 13. Some are trivial, like not cutting nails after sunset. Some are ridiculous, like my late friend Jimmy Umrigar’s firm belief that a certain girl, intelligent and attractive, should not be invited to the races because she was a panoti (harbinger of bad luck).

Some have a commercial flavour. If the shape of the land projects Waghmukhi (tiger’s face), it forebodes ill-luck and would be disastrous to purchase. Haunted houses is another superstition. Some ingenious estate agents capitalise on such superstitions lucratively. Some superstitions are sinister, like the belief that there is a bhoot in the village and that some persons are practising witchcraft or are possessed with demonic powers and therefore should be eliminated.

It is incomprehensible how persons who believe in a Benevolent creator can subscribe to rank superstitions which stem from an irrational fear of the unknown and the unfathomable. Edmund Burke rightly described superstition as the religion of feeble minds. Superstitions could hopefully be banished if we as citizens conscientiously practise the fundamental duty of developing scientific temper and the spirit of inquiry prescribed by our Constitution.