|
|
1.1.1. The preamble to be Constitution of India declares
that the people of India have resolved to constitute India
into a sovereign democratic republic with the four-fold
objective, namely, to secure to all its citizens, justice
social, economic and political; liberty of thought,
expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status
and of opportunity and to promote among them all
fraternity, assuring the dignity of the individual. As
would be evident from the provisions in Part V and Part VI
of the Constitution, we have established for ourselves a
parliamentary form of government patterned on the British
model. In a parliamentary democracy, there is no formal
separation between the Parliament and the political
executive (Council of Ministers). The political executive
is a part and parcel of the Parliament and is drawn from
it. The party or the group of parties which has a majority
in the lower House or which enjoys the confidence of the
lower House, is invited by the President to form the
government. In other words, in a parliamentary democracy,
the political executive is not elected as such by the
people. Even the President, the titular Head of the State
is not elected by the people directly but by the Members of
the Parliament and the State Legislatures. It is for this
reason that the Supreme Court has held repeatedly even
before the enactment of the Constitution (Forty-Second)
Amendment Act, 1976, in Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of
Punjab (AIR 1955 SC 549) and in Samsher Singh v. State of
Punjab (AIR 1974 SC 2192) that the position of the
President under our Constitution is akin to the British
Monarch. In other words, he is a constitutional head of
the State. The real governing power vests in the political
executive. Similar is the position in the States. The
system obtaining in this country is wholly different from
the one obtaining in the United States of America where the
executive, namely, the President is elected directly by the
people just as the Legislature (Congress) is elected by the
people directly in a separate election. In such a system
of government, the governing power is distributed between
the President and the Congress and the political executive
is not drawn from the Legislature whereas in a
parliamentary form of government like ours, the political
executive (Council of Ministers) is drawn from Parliament
and is answerable to the Parliament for exercise of its
powers.
1.1.2. Whether in a parliamentary form of government or a
Presidential form, indeed in every democracy, the process
of election should be free, fair and equitable.
Fortunately, our Constitution and the Representation of the
People Act, 1950 and Representation of the People Act, 1951
to seek to provide for a free and fair election but
problems have been arising in this regard on account of
division in our polity on the basis of religion, caste,
language, region and race. [Free and fair elections are
the very foundation of democratic institutions (P.R.
Belagali v. B.D. Jatti, AIR 1971 SC 1348; Indira Nehru
Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299; and Mohinder Singh
Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC
851)]. However there has been a steady deterioration in
the standards, practices and pronouncements of the
political class, which fights the elections. Money-power,
muscle-power, corrupt practices and unfair means are being
freely employed to win the elections. Over the years,
several measures have been taken by Parliament to amend the
laws relating to elections with a view to check the
aforementioned forces. This report, which has been
prepared after extensive consultations, is a step in the
said process. It is hoped that Parliament will take prompt
action to give them legislative imprimatur.
For more information:
Telephone Us: 011-46081209, 011-64598338, 91-9891155057, 91-9868340420
Email Us: info@youthforequality.com
|