Recent judgements of Supreme Court on election reforms seems to be self contradictory. In one of the judgement (Lily Thomas case) the SC said that if a person has been sentenced to more than 2 years, he is disqualified from contesting elections for 6 years, no doubt this is the correct interpretation, sine they strike off the proviso where a person was entitled to contest, in case he filed timely appeal. But in subsequent judgement the SC seems to be overruled their own previous judgment, as they by refereeing section 62(5) of Representation of People Act held that if one is not entitle to cast vote in any of the election, he can not contest the same election. With due respect to SC, I find this reasoning full of absurdity and contradictions for following reasons. 1. Section 62 of the said Act says “right to vote” instead disqualification as voter. 2. Section 62(5) of the said act does not “debar” a person to be a voter, rather it put fetters on exercising of right to cast vote for time being since the person is in custody. Meaning thereby, he cannot seek to enforce his right to cast vote during custody by way of law suit, though he is still a valid voter. So if he is a valid voter of the constituency, but cannot enforce his right due to some circumstances, he cannot be termed as disqualified. 3. Lastly, casting a vote is not a condition precedent for contesting the election, the only condition which has been put forth by the Act is to have valid entry in the voter list of the constituency where a person is intended to contest the election. So to me a person who is not convict of more than 2 years shall have a right to contest the election, if his name is on the valid voter list, being in jail or in police custody can stop him from casting vote but does not render him to be disqualified.
Posted on: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 05:05:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015