July 2002: Following the Supreme Court verdict barring criminals from contesting elections, and the Election Commission's decision to require candidates to make disclosures about their past, the Government of India has put forward a draft bill for legislative reforms. Under this draft bill, the affidavit to filed by candidate provides for disclosure of information on past convictions. However, the disqualification clauses of this draft bill reveal that this new legislation will essentially protect the criminal elements in our political system, rather than cleanse politics. 
Click here to see the draft Bill First impressions 

• Section 4 of this Bill explicitly states that irrespective of any court judgment or instruction of the EC, NO candidate shall be liable to disclose any information not required under this law or rules. 
• The affidavit does provide for disclosure of information on past convictions for any offences listed under section 8 (1) & 8(2) of RP Act, 1951, or for any other offences for which the candidate has been sentenced for two years or more. 
• There is not even a murmur about the other Electoral Reforms that the government has been promising for long. 
• As is now well known, section 8B is added to the RP Act 1951, to disqualify candidates facing two separate criminal proceedings concerning heinous offences, if charges have been framed at least six months prior to the date of nomination. But such disqualification does not apply if any criminal proceeding concerning the heinous offence is stayed by an order of a competent court. 

• The new disqualification is only for two separate charges framed for extremely grave offences, that too prior to six months before nomination, and only if such cases are not stayed by any competent court. In effect, this is a token attempt to give an impression that some genuine effort is being made to curb criminalization of politics. In reality, the net effect of this provision will be marginal at best. 
• There is no disclosure of any financial details. And if this law stands as it is, there is no possibility of future disclosures of candidate's assets and liabilities. 
• This Bill prohibits eliciting information even to enforce the existing provisions of the RP Act, 1951. 

• The Supreme Court's judgment is in respect of the fundamental right to information, derived under Art 19 of the Constitution. Can the legislature abridge this fundamental right? If the law does abridge this right is there a recourse to the Supreme Court? 
• Can people be denied information related to other charges framed and past convictions, when they are a matter of public record? 
• What happens if a candidate commits a second murder just a few months before the election and is charged with the offence by a competent court? Have we come to such a sorry pass that even for extremely grave offences, if charges are framed within six months prior to nomination, the candidate cannot be disqualified? And do we require two such separate offences to think of disqualifying a candidate? Is this a rehabilitation programme for hardened criminals? 
• Can a law prohibit the EC from exercising its legitimate jurisdiction under Article 324 from seeking information which is relevant to discharge of its duties under the law - for example, details of convictions which might disqualify a candidate? 

• Feedback: Tell us what you think of this article 
• Home Page for legal issues