|
|
3.3.1. A Perusal of the statistics regarding the number of
independent candidates who contested Elections to the
Twelfth Lok Sabha shows that out of 1915 independent
candidates, only 6 candidates were elected. This reveals
that slightly more than 0.3% independent candidates could
only win seats contested by them. The Indrajit Gupta
Committee Report on State Funding of Elections projects
figures relating to independent candidates who contested
the earlier Parliamentary Elections as follows:
"8.2 ... out of 1900 independent candidates who
contested the last parliamentary elections in 1998,
only 6 (0.65%) (sic.) succeeded to win and 1883
lost their security deposit. Likewise, out of
10,635 independent candidates, who contested the
1996 parliamentary election, only 9 (0.08%) of such
candidates won and 10,603 (99.70%) forfeited their
deposits. Similar was the fate of independents
contesting the last round of assembly elections in
four States/National Capital Territory of Delhi in
November, 1998 where only 19 (0.99%) out of 1910
independents could reach the post. The records
would further show that most of these independents
were also really not independent but rebels of
certain established parties and who were supported
by rival parties."
3.3.2. In Dhartipakar v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1987 SC 1577,
the Supreme Court recommended to parliament to devise ways
and means to meet the onslaught of independent candidates
who are not serious about their business.
3.3.3. Past experience shows that many independent
candidates contested Lok Sabha elections in a casual manner
or for oblique reasons. In many cases their security
deposits were forfeited. One of the resultant effects of
independents contesting the Lok Sabha seats is that the
ballot paper becomes unmanageably large. Non-seriousness
of some of the independent candidates is exemplified in the
case of one of the BJP candidates, namely, Shri
V.K.Malhotra, against whom quite a few persons of the same
name "V.K.Malhotra" stood as independent candidates from
the same constituency in Delhi during Lok Sabha elections
in order to mislead the masses. Such practices are meant
to confuse people and make them cast their vote in favour
of a candidate whom they never intended to vote.
3.3.4. In order to eliminate the problem altogether, and
consistently with our recommendation regarding the
requirement of 5% votes set out in para 3.2.15.3., it is
considered appropriate to debar independent candidates as
their participation in the elections has in no way
contributed to strengthening of Indian democracy.
3.3.5. It is understood that 650 political parties are
currently registered with the Election Commission of India
(Times of India dated 6th may, 1999), whether recognised or
not. By virtue of proposed new section 65A(1), a party
would not get a seat in the House of the People if it gets
less than 5% of the total valid votes cast in elections to
that House. This objective will be frustrated if
independents are not barred from contesting, for, small
splinter parties will not then take risk of contesting
elections for fear of not being able to obtain 5% or more
of the total valid votes cast in the said election to the
House of the People. Candidates of such splinter parties
would then safely prefer to contest as independent
candidates. The barring of independent candidates will,
therefore, be consistent with our recommendation to
introduce a provision requiring receipt of minimum
percentage of votes by the RPP to be able to get seats in
the Lok Sabha.
3.3.6. Conclusions.- In Law Commission's view, the time is
now ripe for debarring independent candidates from contesting Lok Sabha and Legislative Assembly elections.
3.3.6.1. Any person proposing to contest Lok Sabha
election can always form a political party and contest
elections but its entitlement to any seat in Lok Sabha will
be subject to the condition that it obtains not less than
5% of the total valid votes cast in the election to Lok
Sabha. Therefore, it cannot be legitimately argued that
our proposal would tend to interfere with democratic or
political processes.
3.3.7. Accordingly, it is recommended that a new
sub-section, namely, sub-section (1) be introduced in
section 4 of this Act, as suggested hereinbelow, and the
existing provision shall be renumbered as sub-section (2).
The proposed sub-section (1) shall read as
follows:-
"(1) Only the political parties registered with the
Election Commission under section 11(4) shall be
entitled to put forward candidates to fill a seat
in the House of the People."
Similarly, section 5 of the Act should also be
amended by introducing the following sub-section (1):-
"(1) Only the political parties registered with the
Election Commission under section 11(4) shall be
entitled to put forward candidates to fill a seat
in the Legislative Assembly."
The existing provisions of section 5 shall be
renumbered as sub-section (2).
For more information:
Telephone Us: 011-46081209, 011-64598338, 91-9891155057, 91-9868340420
Email Us: info@youthforequality.com
|