
MUMBAI, JULY 30: Two days after Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray announced he would not challenge the Election Commission8217;s order disenfranchising him until December 2001, a delegation led by former Maharashtra Chief Minister Manohar Joshi called on State Chief Electoral Officer D K Sankaran, urging him to get the direction revoked.
8220;The news of the Sena chief8217;s disenfranchisement has sent shock waves and created massive unrest among the people of this country,8221; the memorandum claimed.
Asked what course the party would take if the demand was rejected, Joshi said, 8220;We might go to court8221;. But, he added, 8220;we will act on the directions of Balasaheb8221;.
The team included, besides Joshi, Chief Minister Narayan Rane, veteran Sena leader Dattaji Savli, senior advocate and Rajya Sabha member Adhik Shirodkar, Law Minister Leeladhar Dake, Education Minister Sudhir Joshi, Cultural Affairs Minister Pramod Navalkar, Uddhav and Raj Thackeray, Subhash Desai and speaker of the dissolved Assembly DattajiNalawade.
Joshi said Sankaran was asked to revoke the order 8220;as it has hurt the sentiments of the Sena workers and has created unrest.8221;
8220;We requested Sankaran to take cognisance of our hurt feelings as well as those of the people,8221; the former chief minister said, adding the delegation had asked the officer to make a fresh recommendation to the President to reinstate Thackeray8217;s right to vote.
He said his party had 8220;no objection8221; if Thackeray was barred from contesting the elections, since he had already declared his intention to keep clear of joining the fray, but wanted his voting rights restored.
The delegation submitted that since the 1987 election of the Sena8217;s Ramesh Prabhu 8212; whose rival, Congress candidate Prabhakar Kunte, had filed the case against him and Thackeray for misusing religion during campaign speeches 8212; has already been set aside, it was 8220;unreasonable8221; to penalise Thackeray after more than a decade.
8220;It is difficult to reconcile Ramesh Prabhoo8217;s disqualification and theSena chief8217;s disenfranchisement,8221; the memorandum said.
Adhik Shirodkar, Thackeray8217;s counsel in the case filed by Kunte, said that under the Representation of People8217;s Act, it was within the EC8217;s jurisdiction to rescind the order. 8220;It will have to modify the order and obtain fresh consent of the President,8221; Shirodkar said.
Meanwhile, Shiv Sena leader and member of the dissolved Parliament, Mohan Rawale, today threatened to stall the election process if the order was not withdrawn.
8220;If the order is not revoked, we will ensure that the electoral process comes to a halt,8221; Rawale said at a public meeting in Byculla today.
He called upon President K R Narayanan to reverse the order 8220;in the larger interests of democracy.8221;
Rawale, whose election to the parliament was also challenged on the ground that he sought votes in the name of religion, said it was unfortunate that his mentor was being blamed 8220;for obvious political reasons.8221;
8220;When it has been publicly accepted that Hindutva and Hinduism area way of life, it will be wrong to call it a corrupt electoral practice.8221;
Kunte notice to Election Commission
MUMBAI: Counsel for Prabhakar Kunte, the Congressman whose election petition against Sena candidate Ramesh Prabhu in 1987 led to the Shiv Sena chief8217;s disenfranchisement, has sent a legal notice to the Election Commission challenging its decision to count the disqualification period from December 11, 1995. M P Vashi has contended that under Section 8A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 disqualification takes place from the date of the order passed by the President of India, in this case from July 17, 1999. The petition against the election of Prabhu had been filed in 1987 and the order of the Bombay High Court setting aside the election of Prabhu had been on April 7, 1989. An appeal against the order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on December 11, 1995 and it was on July 7, 1999 that the President of India had issued orders disqualifying Thackeray for six years.
Hehas also argued that Thackeray has not suffered disqualification under Section 8A of the Act in the intervening period and hence it is logical that the period be calculated from the year 1999. In case, the EC fails to do so, Vashi has threatened legal proceedings against it.