Cleanse ~ klɛnz/
· make (something, especially the skin) thoroughly clean.
"this preparation will cleanse and tighten the skin"
synonyms:
|
· rid of something unpleasant or defiling.
"the mission to cleanse America of subversives"
synonyms:
|
_________________________________________________________________________________
The aforementioned text explains the meaning of cleansing. My reason to search out the meaning from google, listening to the pronunciation a couple of times and putting it up at the starting of this article is something closely related to my ego. I have been sensing a lot of cacophony off lately surrounding the word “cleansing”. The mentions I observed were in magazines, newspapers and even from Arnab Goswami. Albeit the topic of discussions is not skin cleansing or getting rid of subversives, but the Indian neo-political arena. So to say that the continuous notice of the word provoked me to look up the meaning in Google search bar, for I feared that I had a faux meaning of the word in my mind.
The
story is about some frequent decisions taken by the Supreme Court. The scene
got created when people realized that these decisions taken by the apex court
fell head on over the legislature. Before proceeding further, let’s remember
that the Indian constitution describes 3 parallel pillars as the corner stone
of our political system. The Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary form
these 3 pillars. These are insulated from each other in the sense that neither
of them can interfere in any other’s operations but can keep a check and
balance by using directive tools such as writs, demonstrations and pressure
groups.
To what the news channels describes as an “act of political
cleansing” done by the Supreme Court, it is merely a refined understanding of
what already had been inculcated inside the constitution for the latter.
The SC orders were in “Chief Election Commission vs. Jan Chaukidar” and “Lily Thomas vs. Union of India”. It stopped short in the NOTA (None of
the above) case henceforth leaving it debatable.
According to the verdict stated in the CEC vs. Jan Chaukidar, incarcerated persons will be proscribed from
contesting elections to the Parliament and State Legislatures. So to say,
people under police custody or jail cannot contest elections.
According to the Lily
Thomas vs. Union of India case any sitting member of the Parliament or a
State legislature if convicted would immediately
loose his or her membership from the house.
The landmark “NOTA” judgment
in People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs.
Union of India to introduce “None of
the above” option in EVMs (Electronic Voting Machines) and Ballot papers is
both perceived as a harbinger of far-reaching positive change in India’s
political setup as well as another misleading theatrical melodrama at the same
time by political and legal observers.
It is of prime importance to understand the dynamics
surrounding these declarations before we can comment on them. The CEC vs. Jan Chaukidar case is only
observed as a declaration forbidding incarcerated persons from contesting
elections. However the SC explains that this decision is a mere insightful
understanding of the Representation of People’s Act 1951. It was always present
there but only understood now.
CEC vs. Jan Chaukidar
As per the Article 326 the Parliament enacted
Representation of People’s Act 1950 (for registration of voters) and
Representation of People’s Act 1951 (for conduct of elections). The 1950 act
clearly mentions in its Section 16(1)(c) that if a person is denied the right to vote (which according to the SC
is a statutory right, given and taken back by law), then his/her name is not
included in the electoral role (list of people eligible to vote from one
particular constituency). Section 62 of the 1951 Act is titled “Right to vote” and it provides in sub-section
(5) that no person shall vote at any election if he is confined in a prison,
whether under a sentence of imprisonment or transportation or otherwise, or is
in the lawful custody of the police.
Furthermore Section 4 and 5 of the 1951 Act lays down
the qualifications for membership of the House of the People and State
Legislatures. One of the qualifications laid down is that he must be an “elector” (voter)
for any Parliamentary and Assembly constituency respectively. Therefore
since under the state of police custody, sentence of imprisonment or simply incarceration,
the right to vote of a person is quashed
and he is proscribed from voting, he disqualifies to be eligible to contest an
election.
Hence the CEC
vs. Jan Chaukidar case explained clearly.
Lily Thomas vs. Union of India
This particular decision empowers the law to
disqualify MPs and MLAs from their seats in the houses immediately if
convicted. Section 8(4) of the Representation of People’s act provided an
additional layer of immunity to law makers to retain their seats upon
conviction if they could appeal to a higher court within 90 days. However as
per the judgment, SC struck down Section 8(4) from RPA and mandated immediate
disqualification. Ex Bihar CM and Ex Railway Minister Lalu Prasad’s 700 page
judgment based on circumstantial evidence given by SC in the infamous fodder
scam and his immediate disqualification from parliament gives perhaps a perfect
exemplification of the aforementioned SC verdict.
SP Supremo Mulayam Singh Yadav expressed his
apprehensions as “As people’s
representatives we get cases filed against us for all sorts of reasons and
some of them result in convictions also. Should that be a reason for
disqualifying us?” Well my response to him is “when people’s representatives
forget that they are just people’s representatives, people will do file against
them. And as for convictions, their validation stand on the basis of proof, which
if is true then it needs to be accepted with grace by a people’s
representative. Period!” Poor luck big guy.
None of the above
Former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha, Subhash
Kahyap explained how Supreme Court has abstained itself from doing more than
what could have been done in the NOTA case. SC does realize the difference
between NOTA and the Right to Reject, the
latter lying strictly in the legislative domain. Conversely the above two cases
and their decisions were under judicial domains. Currently the presence of NOTA
on an EVM simply provides an option to a voter to not choose any of the
aforementioned candidates. However this differentiates from Right to reject in the sense that the
candidate receiving the maximum number of votes still gets elected. The real
sense of Right to reject would originate
if an amendment is done by law, which defines that if NOTA receives the maximum
number of votes, then all candidate gets rejected and a re-poll occurs.
Since the SC conserves such powers and liberties
to interpret the constitution and the laws made by the legislatures, it is
important to realize that the above mentioned decisions do not overlap the
boundaries of Legislature and Judiciary. They still run parallel under the
guiding principles of our constitution. Indeed now I do realize that the common
people like Lily Thomas are doing the real cleansing, while the Judiciary is
merely following its duties. Albeit a smart styled now!
The author is a Civil Services Aspirant,who loves
to explore the whims and fancies surrounding the socio-political arena in
India.
References:
