Supreme intervention

The Supreme Court judgement striking down as 8216;unconstitutional8217; the Electoral Reforms Act 8212; passed last year by an all-party ...

The Supreme Court judgement striking down as 8216;unconstitutional8217; the Electoral Reforms Act 8212; passed last year by an all-party consensus in Parliament 8212; in some ways upholds the democratic rights of the Indian voter but it also places the judiciary on a collision course with the legislature.

When the Electoral Reforms Act was passed last year, following a Supreme Court order which originated in the demand of several activist groups on the people8217;s right to know more about the candidates they vote for, MPs were accused of violating the spirit of the SC order. This is because the final law diluted the court8217;s order. For instance, it allowed elected representatives to declare their assets to the speaker after they had been elected rather than before they stood before the people.

Now, with elections in the air, the Supreme Court has declared that the present Act is simply not good enough and those seeking the mandate of the people must expose themselves to greater public scrutiny.

Given the well-documented malpractices in elections, the SC order will certainly not be popular at all among those who are gearing up for the hustings and may even give rise to a debate on judicial high-handedness.

The deep structural irregularities in the electoral machinery of Indian democracy are well-known. Groups such as the Hyderabad-based Lok Satta have long pointed to the fact that criminal backgrounds of candidates, illegal sources of wealth and false electoral rolls make a travesty of the principle of universal adult franchise. The election process, which should be open, simple and easily accessible to the public, is in fact highly cumbersome, shrouded in bureaucratic secrecy and open to manipulation at the local level by influential politicians and caste leaders.

Electoral reform is a dire and crucial need, far too urgent to be allowed to get lost in an institutional squabble between the Parliament and the Supreme Court.

In fact, an example of the manner in which such quarrels may derail the spirit of reform is manifest in the unfortunate confrontation between the Madhya Pradesh government and the EC over its recommendation to suspend three civil servants over gross discrepancies in the state8217;s electoral rolls.

Story continues below this ad

The reason is that in Madhya Pradesh as in many other states, local officers responsible for preparing voters8217; lists have become inevitably partisan. Elections are the life-blood of our democracy, yet today they are notoriously corrupt and give birth to a self-serving political class. The Supreme Court8217;s order, particularly the demand for the declaration of candidates8217; educational details, may be excessive and unduly confrontational. But as a statement of ethical principles, it is welcome.