Parties must publish criminal antecedents of candidates within 48 hours of selection: Supreme Court
[ad_1]
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, August 10, 2021, made it mandatory for political parties to publish the criminal antecedents of their poll candidates and why there were chosen to contest the elections within 48 hours of their selection.
A Bench of Justices Rohinton Nariman and B.R. Gavai modified the court’s February 13, 2020, judgment. In this judgment, the court had given political outfits, both regional and national, 48 hours to two weeks to publish the details. On Tuesday, the top court made it mandatory for the parties to publish the details in 48 hours itself.
Also read: Editorial | Crime and politics
Last year’s judgment had directed political parties to “to upload on their website detailed information regarding individuals with pending criminal cases (including the nature of the offences, and relevant particulars such as whether charges have been framed, the concerned court, the case number etc.) who have been selected as candidates, along with the reasons for such selection, as also as to why other individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected as candidates”.
The court had said the criminal past, if any, and other details of the candidates should be published in regional and national newspapers. It should also be featured in the official social media platforms of the political parties, including Facebook and Twitter.
The Supreme Court had said the details published should also explain the reasons for selecting a particular person as a candidate along with reference to the qualifications, achievements and merit and not “mere winnability at the polls”.
The 2020 verdict had further directed that parties should then submit a report of compliance with the Election Commission within 72 hours of the selection of the candidate. “If a political party fails to submit such compliance report with the Election Commission, the Election Commission shall bring such non-compliance by the political party concerned to the notice of the Supreme Court as being in contempt of this court’s orders/directions,” the judgment had directed.
The Tuesday judgment was on the basis of a contempt petition filed by an advocate, Brajesh Mishra, who said parties were not complying with the February 2020 judgment. The Bench had in the previous hearing extensively heard the Election Commission and amicus curiae and senior advocate K.V. Vishwanathan on how to “punish” political parties who have not fully complied with the 2020 judgment. The court has reserved the contempt case, which arose from the Bihar Assembly elections, for orders.
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPI(M), which heads the LDF government in Kerala, and the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), an ally in the ruling coalition in Maharashtra, had “unconditionally apologised” to the Supreme Court for not complying with the 2020 judgment.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, for the Election Commission, submitted that the NCP fielded 26 candidates with criminal antecedents and the CPI(M) ran with four candidates with criminal past.
“We don’t buy this ‘sorry’, our orders have to be followed,” Justice Nariman said.
Mr. Singh had submitted that the Rashtriya Janata Dal was the biggest defaulter with 103 candidates having criminal antecedents. The JDU, which heads the Bihar government, fronted 56 candidates involved in criminal cases.
[ad_2]
