Elaborate & Fool-Proof Affidavit Format, State Funding, Stop Criminalisation Of Politics: Madras High Court To Hear Plea For Electoral Reforms

The plea, filed by Advocate K S Radhakrishnan, Dravida Munnetra Kazhakam (DMK) spokesperson and activist, came up before the First Bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice P.D Audikesavalu, and the registry was directed to number the writ petition after minor changes are made in the Affidavit by the petitioner.

The petitioner states that reforming the election process in the country is critical and one of the primary steps towards electoral reforms would be a foolproof and detailed affidavit format under Section 75 A of Representation of the People Act, 1951. Seeking appropriate directions from the Court under Article 324 of the Constitution, the petitioner mainly contends that the current details mandatory to be furnished in the affidavit are inadequate.

The petitioner suggests that necessary amendments must be made to the current format. This must include the information with regard to their wealth and assets acquired as on the date of joining into politics / getting membership in any political party. The petitioner also adds that the source of legitimate income utilised for acquiring the properties and other sources must be included in order to test the veracity of wealth and assets furnished by candidates.

The petitioner further states that the affidavit must contain comprehensive details about the party that each candidate belongs to and the intention behind each candidate's venture into politics must be unequivocally declared. Additionally, these details must be made available to the public in an easily accessible format.

Pursuant to the judgment and order of this Hon'ble Court in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294, though Section 33A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 read with Rule 4(A) of the Conduct of the Election Rules makes provisions for filing an affidavit in respect of information directed to be given, it is ineffective to enforce the directions given by the court. According to the petitioner, "there is a complete void in the statutory mechanism to even have a prima facie verification of the contents of the affidavit submitted by the candidate" and it, in turn, violates the voters' right to know the antecedents of the candidates.

"It is submitted that in the event of furnishing documentary evidence with the affidavit, the Returning Officer would be in a position to effectively perform his duty under Section 36 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 to reject a nomination paper which contains false information", the petition states.

Though the Representation Of The People Act, 1951 prescribes punishment for candidates who file false affidavits, there are no specific guidelines about the follow-up action to be taken once it's evident. Additionally, the petition also draws the court's attention to the lack of a similar provision in RPA, 1951 like that of RPA, 1950:

"Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, makes a person who in connection with preparation, revision or correction of an electoral roll or in connection with inclusion or exclusion of an electoral roll, makes a statement or declaration in writing, which is false; be punishable with imprisonment extending to one year or fine or both. However, there is no parallel provision in the RPA, 1951, to penalize a person making false declaration in connection with conduct of elections", contends the petitioner.

Another electoral reform pressed by the petitioner is the implementation of the Indrajit Gupta Committee Report that endorsed phased State Funding of Elections as well as periodical audit reports, in order to establish a fair playing field for parties or candidates with less financial abilities. The petitioner alleges that the scheme of electoral bonds are a failure in preventing the inflow of black money in election campaigns. The said scheme becomes redundant on account of the lifting of 7.5% maximum limit on the proportion of the profits a company can donate to a political party, which would lead to shell companies being set up specifically to fund parties, and refusal of Political Parties to come under the preview of RTI Act etc, the petitioner states.

Advocate K.S. Radhakrishnan also seeks directions to the concerned authorities for making a proper policy framework to eradicate caste-based elections and to minimize the influence of caste in the election process.

"The electoral authority should take steps to discourage caste-based election. It is submitted that reserving a particular region for a particular caste for people to nominate is totally in contradiction to the secularism", the petition adds.

By citing the example of the Australian Upper House of Parliament, the petition also bats for equal representation of candidates participating in elections per state regardless of the quantum of population.

"Petitioner desires to mention that the state of Uttar Pradesh has a greater number of MLAs and MPs whereas the state of Tamil Nadu has a lesser number of MLAs and MPs. The Petitioner further states that a feasibility study must be carried out by the ECI to regulate equal representation of election candidates from each state", it is stated.

The petitioner also submits that though the Indian Parliament has a bicameral system, there are no legislative councils in various states.

Regarding putting an end to the criminalisation of politics, the petitioner submits that Section 8 of the Representation Of The People Act is insufficient to curb the entry of muscle power in electoral politics. Section 8 stipulates that prospective candidates convicted of offences with punishment over 2 years cannot stand for elections in the 6 years after the jail term has ended. According to the petitioner, the law entirely depends on the conviction for criminal offences and political parties have been hesitant to amend the Representation of the People Act.

The petitioner also raises concerns about the safety of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and urges the court to look into the issue of EVMs not being transported without adequate levels of security as mandated.

Case Title: K.S Radhakrishnan v. Union of India & Anr.

Case No: WP No.108550/ 2021 (Filing No.)