EC shoots down HM advice on poll reforms

In what amounted to a critique of the Home Ministry8217;s agenda for electoral reform, the EC today gave a point-by-point response to each of the 24 priorities while observing that the all important issue of criminalisation of politics and steps to curb this trend had not been touched upon at all.

In its 38-page document, the Commission, shot down the proposal to lower the age of candidates contesting elections to the legislative assemblies and Lok Sabha from 25 years as at present to 21 years on the grounds that the maturityand experience required from a legislator could not be expected from a 21-year-old.

Since the same age qualification applies for being Ministers of the Union and States, 8220;leaving the destiny of millions of people in such immature hands would not be a safe proposition and should not be experimented with,8221; the Commission said.

In Rajya Sabha8217;s case, the proposal to lower the age of candidature is even more unacceptable since members of the 8220;House of Elders8221; act as a balancing factor, based on their maturity, on the actions engaged in by the Lower House.

8220;To have a House of Elders with 25-year-olds will substantially detract from it the very valuable role that it plays in the national political process,8221; said Chief Election Commissioner M S Gill, adding that the existing age limit of 25 years for Lok Sabha and 30 years for the Rajya Sabha should remain unchanged.

The Election Commission also recommended that while delimitation of constituencies had been frozen till after the 2001 Census by an actof Parliament, the incongruous size of different constituencies necessitated certain 8220;adjustments8221; in the existing division of constituencies.

This task, as well as a proposal for rotation of reserved constituencies, could be entrusted to the Commission which is a three-member Constitutional body empowered with the status of Supreme Court judges.

Describing the Commission as an independent and completely neutral institution, Gill advocated that at the present political juncture in the country, the composition of a fresh delimitation Commission was unlikely to earn the consensus of major political parties and could end up becoming a contentious issue.

But the EC8217;s anguish at being cut out of the action with regard to an issue as fundamental as electoral funding was evident, when it stated that it is 8220;understood8221; that a high-level Commission has been set up by the Government to examine all aspects of state funding for elections. 8220;The Commission desires that it be kept informed of the deliberationsof that Committee8221; and 8220;the Commission would like to interact with the Committee8221;, the EC said.

While the political parties have suggested restrictions on contesting elections from more than one constituency, the EC felt the existing restriction, limiting candidates to contesting two constituencies should continue.

Similarly, though the parties wanted a complete ban on donations by private companies to political parties, the Commission felt that private companies should be permitted to contribute up to 5 per cent of the average net profits. Gill8217;s explanation: Companies would make donations to politicians anyway, so it was better to make it legal, transparent and in the public gaze, rather than drive it underground.

The Commission also drew up its own list of 8220;additional proposals for electoral reforms8221;, headed by measures to check criminalisation of politics, an issue which had dominated the recent general elections. The EC had earlier suggested that anyone convicted of an offence by a court oflaw and sentenced to imprisonment for six months or more be debarred from contesting polls.

But from its experience of the last polls, the EC has further suggested that any person who is accused of any offence punishable with imprisonment for five years, like murder, rape or dacoity, should be debarred from contesting 8220;even when his trial is pending8221;, provided charges have been framed against him by a competent court.