The opposition is playing the game of “mud slinging”, says the Prime Minister of India, Dr Manmohan Singh. The Congress led ruling UPA has chosen a tainted candidate to lead the nation, alleges the opposition who are supporting other candidate. However, the revelations in course of the contest for the election for the President of India, has made the people perplexed. They fail to understand why should the candidates be allowed “not to reveal” their wealth, their criminal record or any other record like defaulter or non payment of dues etc. Have the people no right to know the persons who might be leading the country?
In a democratic country, it is obvious that people have a right to know the persons by whom they are likely to be ruled. They have right to know all the things even before elections so that they can vote as informed voters. It is due to this concept, we, in India have been implementing compulsory disclosure of assets and criminal or other records by the candidates fighting Parliamentary and Legislative elections. It applies to one and all, except in the election of the President of India.
It is a very sad comment on our system of governance. The Election Commission of India has not notified any such mandatory affidavits to be furnished by the candidates for the post of the President containing information of their wealth and criminal records.
The most important question of jurisprudence arises out of this situation. According to the Constitution of India, a candidate is eligible to fight a presidential election on fulfilling certain conditions including conditions applied for the candidates contesting elections to the Parliament of India. The Logical corollary is if a person is not fit to contest even a parliamentary election how can he fight the election for the post of the President of India?
One can raise fingers on the wisdom of the Election Commission of India, who on the one hand wants all the records of wealth and crimes in an affidavit from the candidates contesting elections even to the Legislatures of the Union or of the States and on the other does not want to know any such record from the candidates contesting to become the custodian of the Constitution, Law of the land and the Country.
There is another anomaly in this connection. Election commission should know from the candidates themselves whether they are convicted or any case is pending against them in any court or quasi-judicial institutions of this country. If the Commission is unaware of these facts how can they properly and judicially decide on the validity of the nomination papers and eligibility of the candidates?
A convict is certainly not qualified for any election in any democratic institution of this land. However, in the election for the post of President, the matter is different in the sense that a President is given immunity under the Constitution of India. If a case is pending, and in the meantime the person becomes the President, the whole process of justice is obstructed. The question arises here as to why should a democratic country allow obstructions in the path of justice? There must not be any case pending against a candidate fighting for the post of the President. The Custodian of a country must be above suspicion. There might be some exceptions of this concept, especially in political cases, but then they should be codified.
All these questions have sprang up out of the choice of the UPA. They have chosen the Governor of Rajasthan Ms Pratibha Patil to contest for the Presidential Election, and they hope that they can make her President of this country on their strength of votes even where there are are many allegations on her.
These allegations are not new ones but of years old. In one of the allegations she is said to be a defaulter to the tune of Rs 17.5 crores to a bank. In another, her company is said to have collected lakhs of rupees from staff in the name of helping Kargil war victims, but did not deposit the amount in our National Fund. In yet another allegation, she is said to have been sheltering her brother who was accused of murdering a politician of her own party. She is alleged to have accumulated huge wealth disproportionate to her known source of income.
The other candidate, chosen by the opposition NDA led by the BJP, is the Vice-President of India, Bhairon Singh Shekhawat. He has no blot in his character, except some objections regarding his being member of the BJP and RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) during his past political career. However, there are no allegations against him from any corner of the Indian political scene about his conduct as either Vice-President of India or as Chairman of the Upper House of the Parliament (Rajya Sabha).
In this scenario, the opposition thinks to rake the issue of propriety and integrity of the candidates in the fray. They demanded disclosure of wealth and criminal records by the candidates, which is being opposed tooth and nail by the UPA, especially Congress.
In the meantime the Supreme Court of India has dismissed a petition challenging the candidature of Ms Pratibha Patil. The petitioner had claimed that Ms Patil did not posses requisite qualifications and prayed for rejection of her nomination papers. It was reported that the Justices declined to iterfere on the ground that they do not have jurisdiction in this matter.
However, the larger question of democracy and justice is intact. Should we not improve the electoral system for Presidential contests?