The Hindu : Petitions challenging ordinance accepted against Act

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Jan 18, 2003

National

National

Petitions challenging ordinance accepted against Act

By Our Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI Jan. 17. The Supreme Court today permitted three petitions challenging the electoral reforms ordinance as petitions questioning the validity of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, which recently got Presidential assent.

A three-judge Bench, comprising Justice M.B. Shah, Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi and Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari, had reserved judgment on October 23 last on the three petitions.

Even as the judgment was yet to be pronounced, Parliament had passed the law and therefore the Bench allowed the plea of the People's Union for Civil Liberties, the Lok Satta and the Association for Democratic Reforms to treat their petitions as those challenging the constitutional validity of the Act and asked the Centre to file its response by next Friday.

The Bench agreed with the petitioners that the provisions of ordinance were the same as the provisions of the Act and there was nothing wrong in allowing amendment in the prayers of the petitions.

The petitioners requested the court to treat the pleadings and arguments advanced on the earlier petitions be treated as arguments questioning the validity of the Act and the Bench acceded to the request.

The petitioners had questioned the August 24, 2002 ordinance on the ground that it was intended to nullify the May 2 apex court judgment. They argued that the court had rightly asked the Election Commission to frame guidelines on disclosure by candidates their criminal antecedents, educational qualifications and assets and liabilities. However, the Government by promulgating the ordinance had diluted the directives of the apex court as well as the Election Commission guidelines and, therefore, it was violative of Article 19 of the Constitution under which the court had passed the order.

Further, the ordinance violated the fundamental rights of voters as it did not fully incorporate the criminal background part of the candidate; assets to be disclosed only by the elected candidates and not by the spouse and dependents and it was silent on disclosing educational qualification by a candidate.

On behalf of the Central Government it was contended that it was for Parliament to decide the extent of information which was necessary to be given by the candidates while filing the nomination.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National