COURTLY COMPLIANCE: Lyngdoh has taken on the political class

The Election Commission of India is once again at loggerheads with the political class. Low-profile Chief Election Commissioner J.M. Lyngdoh is no feisty T.N. Seshan but his June 28 order enjoining candidates to file an affidavit on five additional aspects of their candidature has left elected representatives frothing at the mouth. The affidavits will have to list criminal offences, cases pending against them six months prior to the filing of nomination, movable and immovable assets (belonging to them or their spouses), liabilities and educational qualifications.

Unlike predecessor M.S. Gill, who invoked Article 324 of the Constitution to bar those convicted from contesting, Lyngdoh acted only when the Supreme Court, in its May 2 order, directed the EC to ensure within two months that the "little man of this country" had "full particulars of a candidate who is to represent him in Parliament where laws to bind his liberty and property may be enacted". Lyngdoh, however, surprised everyone with his enthusiasm to comply with the apex court's order. On May 14, drafts of the amended nomination papers (forms 2A to 2E) were given to the Law Ministry for approval and notification. The ministry dragged its feet and wanted to consult all parties before implementing the order. It called for an all-party meeting on July 8 and asked Lyngdoh to buy time from the sc. The CEC refused, claiming the EC had no locus standi to do so-it was only a respondent. "The Government was after all the original appellant. It had appealed against the Delhi High Court order of November 2000 that had issued a similar directive to the EC," explains a commission official.

The Nation

TELLTALE FACTS Each candidate will have to list the following details in an affidavit which will be displayed at the office of the returning officer: PAST CRIME RECORD: Conviction or acquittal in any criminal case. RECENT CRIME RECORD: any pending case instituted six months prior to filing of nomination papers. MOVABLE, IMMOVABLE ASSETS: Of the candidate, spouse and those of dependants. LIABILITIES: bank loans, outstanding dues to any public financial institution or government. EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION: Exact details of education, but no minimum requirement to stand for office.

No party wants to be seen opposing a step aimed at decriminalising politics. But each is peeved at the unlimited powers the EC has vested in the returning officer to decide the veracity of affidavits and reject nomination papers on this ground. "Such powers can become an unguided missile in the hands of a deviant officer," says R.S. Prasad, Union minister of state for law. While the new order does not lay down an educational eligibility, Congress spokesman S. Jaipal Reddy is one those who question it nevertheless. "How can education be made a qualification for contesting elections? The Constituent Assembly had decided against it," he says. His BJP counterpart Arun Jaitley says the EC has arrogated legislative powers to itself. For once the CPI(M) does not want to differ. "The EC is not the appropriate authority for filing details of assets.

"Voters must know who they are electing." Ajit Ranade, Association for Democratic Reforms

What resources does the returning officer have to verify claims made in an affidavit?" asks Politburo member Prakash Karat. Ahead of the July 8 meeting, there is already a consensus among parties to overturn the EC order, which they feel is flawed, through legislation.

This does not surprise the 11 faculty members and alumni of Ahmedabad's Indian Institute of Management (IIM) who formed the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) to fight the three-year-old public interest litigation on stringent disclosure norms. "In 1975, Section 77 of the Representation of People's Act was amended to overturn the apex court's ruling on election expenses ceiling," recalls IIM dean and ADR member Professor Jagdeep Chhokar. Fellow ADR member Ajit Ranade is piqued that political parties are resisting transparency. "We want disclosures, not disqualification," he pleads. "People should know who they are voting for." Is anyone listening?

-Lakshmi Iyer