Political parties facing contempt for defying a Supreme Court judgment to declare or publicise the criminal antecedents of their candidates before elections may run the risk of derecognition or a time-bound forfeiture of their election symbols.
A Bench of Justices Rohinton Nariman and B.R. Gavai on Tuesday extensively heard the Election Commission of India (ECI) and amicus curiae and senior advocate K.V. Vishwanathan on how to “punish” the political parties that had not fully complied with the February 13, 2020 judgment.
The court has reserved the contempt case, which arose from the Bihar Assembly elections, for orders.
‘Unconditional apology’
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI-M), which heads the LDF government in Kerala, and the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), a constituent of the ruling Maharashtra coalition, “unconditionally apologised” to the Supreme Court for not complying with the judgment.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, for the ECI, submitted that the NCP fielded 26 candidates with criminal antecedents and the CPI(M) fielded four candidates with criminal pasts.
Justice Nariman said, “We don't buy this ‘sorry’, our orders have to be followed.”
Biggest defaulter
Mr. Singh submitted that the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) was the biggest defaulter, with 103 candidates having criminal antecedents. The JD(U), which heads the Bihar government, fronted 56 candidates involved in criminal cases. “Despite bringing out criminal antecedents in the public domain, criminalisation of politics has gone up,” he pointed out.
Mr. Vishwanathan submitted, “The idea is to evolve a deterrent on the parties.”
Both Mr. Singh and Mr. Vishwanathan suggested the suspension of election symbols as a measure against parties propping up criminals as candidates.
Mr. Vishwanathan drew the court’s attention to Rule 16A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order of 1968, which empowers the ECI to either suspend or withdraw the recognition of political parties that violate lawful directions. He said the February 2020 judgment should not be made toothless by the parties. “Idea is to evolve a deterrent on the party,” he said. The amicus curiae suggested imposing a hefty financial penalty on the parties.
‘Not a symbolic Re. 1’
Senior advocate Harish Salve, also for the ECI, submitted in his turn during the hearing, “The change has to come from the heart of people. What we all want to see is that change should come to the system and it will come.” He said the financial penalty should, however, not be a “symbolic Re. 1”. He observed, “We should not have pictures taken of leaders smiling and handing over a coin.”
Senior advocate P.V. Surendranath, for the CPI(M), urged the court to not take action, saying this court hearing itself was a deterrent enough. The party had apologised unconditionally to the court.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for the NCP, requested the court to not invoke Rule 16A of the 1968 order.
The BJP and the Indian National Congress said they had substantially complied with the judgment.
Senior advocate Dinesh Dwivedi, for the Bahujan Samaj Party, submitted they had even expelled a candidate after coming to know of her criminal past.
The Supreme Court was hearing a contempt petition filed by a lawyer against Chief Election Commissioner Sunil Arora and leaders of prominent political parties for not fully adhering to an apex court decision against allowing “dreaded criminals” contest in the Bihar Assembly polls.
The court, in February last, issued notice in the contempt case, besides Mr. Arora, to Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar, H.R. Srinivas; JDU general secretary K.C. Tyagi; Rashtriya Janata Dal’s Bihar State president Jagdanand Singh; Lok Jan Shakti Party leader Abdul Khalik; Congress leader R.S. Surjewala; and B.L. Santosh of the BJP.
‘Wilful disobedience’
Mr. Singh, in his contempt petition, said the direction of the Supreme Court in 2020 to political parties to publish the criminal antecedents of their candidates in “widely circulated newspapers” was wilfully disobeyed by political parties in the Bihar elections.
The lawyer stated that the court had ordered parties to publish on their websites the reasons for selecting such candidates and why other individuals without a criminal record were not found better-suited to contest the elections.
The parties published the details of their candidates in only one Hindi newspaper and gave similar reasons for their choice of candidates, he pointed out. Out of a total 353 candidates who contested the first phase of the polls for 71 seats, 164 had “tainted images”. Some of them had criminal cases ranging from murder to rape to kidnapping. The RJD topped the list, followed by BJP and the other parties. Blood relatives of convicted henchmen had contested the elections as the latter’s “proxy”, he noted.
Besides seeking contempt proceedings, the petition urged the court to direct the ECI to take action under the 1968 order.
