FLASH: I am glad the EC has heeded my advice! (March 23). Readers can access the full text of the EC’s Order here
My last post on the subject rightly drew a few rejoinders in the Comments section of that post pointing out that I might be wrong in suggesting that the E.C. could direct the R.O. to reject Varun Gandhi’s nomination on the ground that he violated the MCC. This is because although E.C.’s powers under Article 324 are very wide, it cannot exercise those powers in contravention of the existing laws, governing the field. As S.33 and S.36 of RPA deal with all the grounds of a valid nomination, and how the R.O. must scrutinise the nominations, before accepting or rejecting, the violation of M.C.C. cannot be cited as an additional ground, not found in the R.P.A. To suggest that the E.C. can still use its powers under Article 324, because these sections under RPA are not exhaustive enough, will be a bit of a stretch. This much is clear.
Is there then no remedy against those who wilfully defy the MCC? The only weapon available with the E.C. to enforce the MCC is Paragraph 16A of the Symbols Order, 1968. This Paragraph, inserted by the former CEC, T.N.Seshan on February 16, 1994, has not been used even once, but remains a powerful deterrent against wilful defiance of the MCC. Therefore, if the EC finds Varun guilty of violating MCC, then it could direct the BJP, which is a party to this case, not to field Varun as a candidate. This will be a lawful direction, which the BJP has to comply with. If it does not comply, then the E.C. can freeze its symbol, and deprive it the required recognition as a national party. As the E.C. is expected to announce its decision on March 23, we will have an opportunity to know whether the E.C. takes its threat to its logical conclusion.
The news article says
“It has advised the BJP not to give Varun a party ticket to contest polls in Pilibhit in Uttar Pradesh.”
The latter part of it says: “Any sponsorship of his candidature by the BJP, or any other political party at this election, would be perceived as endorsing his unpardonable acts of inciting violence and creating feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of citizens of India, destroying the social, democratic and plural fabric of the country..”
I wonder if the latter is ‘obiter’, and it could be possible to field him as a candidate from any other constituency, or for him to contest as independent candidate.
And pray , what is the rule about bias ? that there should be “real likelihood” of bias as far as i know . Considering the actual accusations about the interrelationship which the INC has with a member of the Election Commission , Sri Navin Chawla ,( as made out by his own Chief) in any other case and situation , such a decision by any authority in their “quasi judicial” capacity would not last two minutes . The legality of the decision cannot be seperated from the method of decision and it is appropriate that the method be discussed as well in arriving at any conclusion about the validity of the order . But I doubt that this blog has the courage or the intention to do such a thing !!
Conscious of recent developments in the past, I am of the view, the test is not satisfied. (Given the obvious statements, I doubt if any reasonable man, considering himself to be sentinel of democratic setup and fair elections, would reach a different conclusion)
Of course, dissents are valued part of our democratic tradition.