Drafting an escape

A week ago, opposition to the Election Commission8217;s directive to candidates to disclose details of their criminal antecedents, assets and educational qualifications, magically brought 21 political parties together. The magic continues. To match that unprecedented display of unity, we now have an unprecedented display of efficiency, with the Union law ministry having come up in record time with a Draft Representation of the People Amendment Bill 2002 that seeks to keep hardened criminals from participating in elections. Truly, there is nothing that goads the system as effectively as a perceived threat to its powers.

We must not, however, allow a certain cynicism of politicians8217; motives to blind us to the possibilities inherent in such a legislation. If the Bill becomes law, our legislators for the first time in years would have undertaken a significant step to reform themselves, albeit at the prodding of the Supreme Court. Under the proposed Bill, candidates who have been charged by a competent court in at least two separate cases would be disqualified from participating in elections. This goes beyond existing legislation which only debars those who have been convicted and sentenced for at least two years. It also goes beyond the EC8217;s directive in that it creates a whole new ground for disqualification. The only point at issue here is the categorisation of the crime. According to the proposed legislation, only chargesheets relating to 8216;8216;heinous8217;8217; crimes are considered objectionable 8212; and the 14 crimes considered 8216;8216;heinous8217;8217; are duly listed. This is a bit of a fiddle because it seems to condone white collar crimes 8212; such as the kind Jayalalithaa is said to have committed. Crime does not become crime only by virtue of having an element of violence thrown into it, but that unfortunately is how the Union law ministry seems to view it.

There is also a significant portion of the EC8217;s directive that does not find space in the Bill 8212; disclosures on personal assets. For this, the electorate will evidently have to wait until a consensus is reached on the vexed issue and a suitable law framed. This process may take years, because it is more broad-spectrum in its application and concerns every legislator, not just those considered criminals. It would appear then that this proposed law helps legislators to negotiate an honourable way out of addressing the Supreme Court8217;s concerns in their entirety.