Latest news with #TheRepresentationofthePeopleAct
Indian Express
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
CPM named in money laundering case: Can ED name a political party as accused?
The Enforcement Directorate on Monday (May 27) submitted a chargesheet in a special court in Kochi in connection with the 2021 Karuvannur Cooperative Bank money laundering case, naming the ruling CPI(M) as an accused. Here is a look at why and how the ED made the political party an accused in the case. The ED has listed the CPI(M), or CPM, as the 68th among a list of 83 accused. Among the 83, eight are CPI(M) functionaries, existing or former. Three senior leaders, K Radhakrishnan MP, former minister A C Moitheen, and senior leader M M Varghese, have been accused as persons who had served as district secretary of the party from 2011 to 2021. The CPM is a political party registered under Section 29A of The Representation of the People Act, 1951. Under this section, only an association or body of individuals can apply to register as a political party. The ED has made CPM an accused in the money laundering case under section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, which deals with offences by companies. According to the section, a 'company' means any corporate body and includes a firm or other association of individuals. The ED argued that as the CPM is identified as an association of individuals under the Representation of the People Act, it falls within the definition of 'company' under the PMLA. The Karuvannur Co-operative Bank money laundering case was initially investigated by the state Crime Branch, which said an estimated Rs 300 crore had been siphoned off from the bank. Later, the ED initiated a probe under the PMLA. The ED alleged that the three leaders — Radhakrishnan, Moitheen and Varghese — during their stints as the district secretary of the CPI(M) had helped people get illegal loans, of which a certain amount was channelised to the party fund. According to the chargesheet, a bank employee named Biju M K, who was made an approver in the case, had confessed before a magistrate court that the CPI(M) district committee members put pressure on the bank authorities to grant illegal loans. The party had maintained five illegal accounts with the Karuvannur bank and proceeds of crime were parked in these accounts, the ED claimed. Is it common for political parties as a whole to be accused? This is only the second instance where the ED has named a political party as an accused under the PMLA. Last year, it had named the AAP as an accused in the alleged liquor scam case.
Indian Express
27-04-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Question before SC: are ‘unopposed' election victories unconstitutional?
The Supreme Court suggested last week that in case there is only one candidate in an election, she should be required to obtain a prescribed minimum vote share in order to be declared elected, rather than winning without the election being held. The court was hearing a petition by legal research think tank Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy questioning the constitutionality of Section 53(2) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951, as far as Lok Sabha and Assembly elections are concerned. This section ('Procedure in contested and uncontested elections') says that 'if the number of…candidates is equal to the number of seats to be filled, the returning officer shall forthwith declare all such candidates to be duly elected to fill those seats'. The court has asked the Union government to file its response within four weeks. Petition and argument The petition, filed in August 2024, argues that not holding the election in case of a single candidate prevents voters from choosing the 'None of the Above' (NOTA) option, which amounts to a violation of their fundamental right. The petition cites the Supreme Court's 2013 judgment in People's Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India, in which the court held that the right to cast a negative vote by choosing NOTA was protected in direct elections under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It argues that 'this right, by which the voter indicates her disapproval of the entire field of candidates, must be agnostic to the number of candidates in the fray'. Uncontested elections Candidates were elected uncontested to Lok Sabha at 26 constituencies between 1951 and 2024, the petition says, citing statistical reports of the Election Commission of India for these years. As such, more than 82 lakh electors had been deprived of the chance to cast their vote in these elections, it says. Of these 26 no-contests, seven took place during the Lok Sabha election of 1957, five each in the elections of 1951 and 1967, three in 1962, two in 1977, and one each in the elections of 1971, 1980, 1989, and 2024, according to the petition. Last year, the BJP candidate from Surat, Mukeshkumar Dalal, was declared elected 'unopposed' after all other candidates either dropped out or had their nominations rejected. Uncontested elections are more common in state Assemblies, the petition says. Response of ECI In its counter affidavit submitted earlier this month, the Election Commission pointed out that only nine of the 20 Lok Sabha elections held from 1951 to 2024 had seen uncontested elections of MPs. And in the more than three decades since 1989, only one candidate had entered Lok Sabha uncontested. 'With the evolution of democracy, more number of political parties are contesting elections and hence, the number of candidates also increases automatically and the voters have also become more aware and eager to exercise their franchise to right to vote. The chance of an election being uncontested has become a rarity which is proven from the statistical data and hence, in such a scenario, [the] court ought not to entertain the present petition,' the ECI said. The Commission argued that 'NOTA' cannot be assumed to have automatically contested every election. It cited the court's NOTA judgment that a button should be added to the electronic voting machine (EVM) to give an option to those who did not wish to vote for any of the candidates in the fray. 'Hence', the ECI said, 'NOTA option can be exercised when the polling takes place where the voters come to the polling booths to cast their votes… Therefore, treating NOTA as a mandatorily contesting candidate in all direct uncontested elections does not find place in the statute and the same would require legislative amendments in the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Conduct of the Elections Rules, 1961.' Justice Surya Kant, who presided over the two-judge Bench, said during the hearing on April 24: 'Will it not be a very welcome and progressive step where only one candidate is left in [fray] and still you say that you will be declared [elected] only when you get at least 10%, 15% [votes], whatever…?' 'When we talk of the majority as the foundation stone of the democracy, why not in furtherance of achieving that very goal, we prescribe that even in a default direction, there should be at least some voters who are liking you,' Justice Kant said. He asked the government to 'please examine' the question, because 'today you don't have a problem…but you can enact something visualising that if tomorrow this problem comes, I have a weapon ready to address it'. What that weapon can be, 'it's your wisdom, if Parliament will decide', he said. '[But] why should we allow somebody to enter Parliament by default who is unable to get even 5% vote? You may think of that because you are representing the will of the people.'
Indian Express
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Consider mandating minimum vote share even for unopposed candidate: Supreme Court to Centre
The Supreme Court on Thursday sought to know whether it can be laid down in the election law to mandate a certain percentage of votes even when there is only one candidate in the fray for declaring him/her elected. 'Will it not be a very welcome and progressive step where only one candidate is left in free [fray] and still you say that you will be declared election [elected] only when you get at least 10%, 15% (votes), whatever…,' Justice Surya Kant presiding over a two-judge bench asked the Centre and the Election Commission of India. 'Our Constitution, and we salute it, is one of the most dynamic… It says that democracy by majority… So when we talk of the majority as the foundation stone of the democracy, why not in furtherance of achieving that very goal, we prescribe that even in a default direction, there should be at least some voters who are liking you,' Justice Kant said. The bench, also comprising Justice N K Singh, was hearing a plea by 'Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy', praying that section 53(2) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951, in so far as it applies to direct elections to Lok Sabha and state assemblies be read down or struck down as unconstitutional. The provision says that in case of an uncontested election, the Election Commission shall declare the only existing candidate as the winner forthwith without holding an election. Appearing for the think tank, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar referred to a hypothetical situation where 3-4 candidates file nominations from a constituency and all except one withdraw on the last day. He said if there are 1 lakh voters in the constituency of whom 10,000 want to vote for the candidate but 25,000 people want to vote NOTA, should they be not entitled to do so? Contesting his submission, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi said that in the last 25 years, there's only one case where an election was uncontested. 'Otherwise it's always contested'. Datar said he is only flagging the potential danger because there can be situations where a candidate may get others to withdraw so that he or she emerges victorious. Justice Kant said that even treating it academically, 'it will be a very good reform… It's not something that should cause any inconvenience to anyone.' Justice Kant said, 'NOTA you have accepted, after the judgment of this court, as expressing the will by a voter. But here, you are in fact helpless… so are the voters. This situation may arise, may not arise. But in case, if you have a proposal like this that where eventually more than one candidate files nomination and at the last moment, the other candidates would go and there is only one candidate left, then at least say you can say…10%, 15%, 25 % voters will be required to vote for it.' Dwivedi said that the NOTA judgement was convenient to implement, adding, 'that's a larger reform where even in general elections, one may say unless you get 50% of the electorate, you can't win. That's a larger question which Parliament will have to engage in.' Justice Kant said, 'You may be right to say that you are governed by the parliamentary law…We are only saying today you please examine… because after all our democratic system has addressed every challenge and every Indian feels proud of that.' The judge said, 'today you don't have a problem. But you can enact something visualising that if tomorrow this problem comes, I have a weapon ready to address it. That's all. What can be that, it's your wisdom, if Parliament will decide…Why should we allow somebody to enter Parliament by default who is unable to get even 5% vote? You may think of that because you are representing the will of the people.' Justice Kant said it will also ensure that the entire constituency will be better represented and promote multi-party culture. Dwivedi said that 'according to our experience, NOTA is a failed idea. It is creating no impact on the elections. It may be a case where some candidates get less than NOTA, but the winning candidates are never impacted by it.' Appearing for the Centre, Attorney General R Venkataramani said he agreed with Dwividi's submissions and said: 'If something is desirable then the court will look at the point of desirability but you can't strike down a law for that reason.' Justice Surya Kant said the court is not thinking of striking down anything but only adding a proviso. 'We are not considering striking down anything. We are only impressing upon you to add something in the existing law.' The AG said that 'even on that it has to be some deliberations elsewhere…' The Court agreed that more deliberations would be necessary and gave the Centre four weeks to file its response. The SC will hear the matter again in July this year.
