ECI, parties must stop candidates from filing false poll affidavits
Filing false election affidavits is a major but least discussed problem plaguing our democracy. It has come to the fore again after three lawmakers from the ruling Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) in Telangana faced setbacks from the state high court. In the first case, the Telangana HC disqualified sitting MLA Vanama Venkateswara Rao for concealing information about properties in his affidavit submitted ahead of the 2018 Assembly polls. It slapped a fine of Rs 5 lakh on him and declared as elected the petitioner, who was the runner-up in the election. In the second case, another MLA, a minister, is accused of citing false certificates, and the court dismissed his plea for quashing the petition against him. The last case is of an MP, who urged the Supreme Court to reject a petition against him in the high court that sought an expeditious hearing on his alleged false affidavit, only to be told to face the proceedings.
This malaise is not limited to one party or state. In the Telangana Assembly alone, at least 15 MLAs face allegations of this nature. The SC has made it abundantly clear that withholding information is nothing but misleading the voter. The Krishnamoorthy vs Sivakumar and Ors judgment held that non-disclosure of pending criminal cases amounts to exerting “undue influence”. Similarly, the Lok Prahari vs Union of India verdict ruled that hiding information about assets and sources of income, too, must be considered as “undue influence”. But politicians continue to indulge in this corrupt practice because of the absence of an effective deterrent. The Representation of People Act mandates up to six months of imprisonment or fine or both for filing false affidavits. Given the slow pace of our judicial process, as in the case of Vanama Venkateswara Rao, the tenure of the Assembly itself will end by the time the verdict comes.
In its report on electoral reforms, the Law Commission recommended daily trials by specially constituted election benches in high courts within six months to dispose of election petitions. It also suggested more time for scrutiny of nominations. The SC and the Election Commission also opined that Parliament could increase punishment up to two years, leading to disqualification. For some inexplicable reason, electoral reforms appear to be the last priority of all parties. If we are to call ourselves not only the largest but also an ideal democracy, we need honest leaders. Parliament should amend the Act, and political parties must shoulder the responsibility of strictly vetting their candidates.