The remarkably unanimous rejection by 21 political parties of the Election Commission’s directives to candidates to disclose details of their criminal antecedents, assets and educational qualifications, is likely to infuse fresh energy into a familiar tug of war. Was the EC exceeding its jurisdiction in prescribing such affidavits on June 28? Did the Supreme Court overstep its powers in its May 2 order mandating such disclosure? Is the judiciary, again, trying to intrude into the legislative arena? These are thorny questions. They are also important questions. In a vibrant, often chaotic, democracy, lines need to be drawn and redrawn perhaps to ensure that all the institutions exercise powers that are legitimately vested in them, that they do not usurp those rightfully belonging to others. In the present instance, as the apex court steps in to tackle a job the legislature has clearly neglected, or resisted, so far, the judiciary does appear to have been caught in an act of overreach. But one thing is clear: with political parties promising to bring in a comprehensive legislation addressing the criminalisation of politics post-haste, the controversy triggered by the court’s initiative is headed towards a happy ending after all. More than fifty years into our democracy, while everyone recognises that the issue of electoral reform is a crucial one, there has been virtually no serious attempt by the legislature to address it. Committees and recommendations abound, but there is no coherent blueprint for change. Though they have been provoked to lofty rhetoric in all-party meetings every now and then, political parties have been largely unmoved and unmoveable on the issue of cleaning up the distortions that have crept into the electoral system, to make elections freer and fairer. In the present instance, too, the government first sat on the EC’s proposals to give effect to the SC’s order; then, it scheduled an all-party meeting well after the SC deadline had expired. It was this refusal by the political class to perform its role in the first place that left the field wide open for the court to seize the initiative. It was this that culminated in the Election Commission devising fresh affidavits that, at times, make impractical demands from candidates, and give the Commission the power to reject nominations, without enough safeguards against its misuse by individual returning officers.The government must now ensure that it comes up with a practicable law that enshrines more transparency in the electoral process. Because, in the last instance, this whole fracas is not about conflicting jurisdictions, about the legislature beating back the judiciary. The real issue here is the voter’s right to know.
