Passing the ordinance

The proposed Representation of the People Amendment Ordinance has now been returned to the president and will be the law of the land. But the hasty manner in which it has been sought to be pushed through is worrying and will have significant ramifications for Indian democracy. The most disturbing aspect of all in this entire process of getting the ordinance passed 8212; starting with the Supreme Court order of May 2 to the union cabinet8217;s decision to go ahead with the ordinance on Saturday 8212; exposed a lack of sync between the various institutions that constitute the democratic apparatus.

The fact is that the country8217;s political parties 8212; it would be unfair to blame just the NDA government on this score since there has been a fair amount of consensus cutting across party lines on this score 8212; have failed to seriously address the concerns raised by the apex court. The court, responding to a public perception that the 1951 Representation of People Act has failed to keep criminals from entering state assemblies and Parliament, had recognised the citizen8217;s right to know a candidate8217;s criminal background, assets, liabilities and educational qualifications, so that he/she could make an informed choice while voting. The nation8217;s politicians may have had some valid reservations to some aspects of this order and that would have been perfectly understandable. But their response, as reflected in the Representation of the People Amendment Bill, 2002, drafted by the union law ministry, betrayed an impulse to fob off the Supreme Court8217;s concerns rather than address them.

It is the bad faith which characterises their response that is unacceptable. It was this superficial, quick-fix response from the country8217;s political masters to the citizen8217;s demand for more substantive electoral law reform that had led President Kalam to send the draft ordinance back to the cabinet for reconsideration. The cabinet 8212; specifically drawing encouragement from the fact that there was political consensus behind it 8212; preferred to stand firm and leave the legislation unaltered. All that can be said is that it is unfortunate in the extreme that an issue as complex as the citizen8217;s right to be informed about political candidates has been handled in so cavalier and self-serving a manner.