Call it a step towards some form of much awaited electoral reforms or upholding the voters’ right to choose the right candidate, the Apex Court has ruled that a candidate shall not be allowed to contest elections in case it transpired that some information was withheld, suppressed or not made known including that of assets and his criminal background. In the considered opinion of the Apex Court suppression of information would constitute an infringement on the right of the voter to know whom he was voting for. The discretion of the voter, as such gets employed in the rudimentary form in as much as whom to choose and whom to reject, based on the vital inputs of information of “know your would be representative”, to put it in simpler words.
The Supreme Court also makes it mandatory to have the details of the information furnished, verified and ascertained by the returning officer, in congruence with the set procedures about which required information was necessarily to be provided by the contesting candidate. The court opined that the returning officer of the Election Commission was empowered to reject the nomination papers of a candidate if he failed to provide all the required information. With this, the right to know of the citizens has come to the fore, which strengthens and buttresses a glimmer about the impending necessity felt, now more than before, for speedy electoral reforms and this ruling of the Apex Court facilitates the opening of the vistas for this purpose.
After a very brief discussion, the Lok Sabha on September 6 passed a bill that maintains and recognizes the right of the jailed person to contest polls after the Apex Court had ruled on July 10 that those in jail could not vote as per Representation of Peoples’ Act and hence could not qualify to contest elections to State Legislatures or the Parliament. Since Parliament is the supreme democratic authority for making and amending laws, the July 10 verdict of the Supreme Court ceased to be effective. However, with the Apex Court’s ruling under reference in respect of rejecting the candidature of a contesting aspirant in case he or she chose to suppress or withhold any information about the assets owned or about the criminal back ground, the filtration and pruning will take place at the first stage itself which is really much required in the political scenario tending to getting increasingly criminalized, though still not with alarming proportions.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel