Constitutional expert and former Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha Subhash Kashyap, in an interview with Akshat Kaushal, says if the suggestion of "None of the above" (NOTA) is accepted by voters all over the country in the current climate, where they say that all the candidates are tainted, then the result will be that no one will get elected. Edited excerpts:
After Friday's Supreme Court (SC) judgment on making the right to reject a fundamental right, are political parties likely to field better candidates?
The intentions of the judgment are good. But it is not going to result in any substantial electoral reform. Also, it will not affect the selection of candidates by political parties. The question of "None Of The Above" (NOTA) has for long been discussed by urban intellectuals and civil society. Krishan Kant, former vice-president, was one of the earliest and strongest votaries of negative voting. Perhaps, I have been in a minority for having consistently held the view that this is more of a fashionable suggestion. It emanates from armchair intellectuals.
In reality, most often, a large majority of voters are actually taken to the polling booths. They are persuaded to vote on the basis of various kinds of temptations or under threat. It is unlikely that a voter will stand in a queue and then vote NOTA. They would rather stay at home. Also, even in the current system, a form can be filled with the returning officer if a voter wants to put on record that he wishes to vote for no one.
But the filing of the form is criticised because the identity of the voter is revealed…
Yes, after the judgment, the secrecy of the candidate will have to be maintained. However, the Supreme Court had earlier itself compromised on secrecy when it ruled in the Kuldip Nayar case that in the elections for the Council of States, electors will have to show their vote to their political parties. Hence, the Supreme Court, has itself in one of its judgment, agreed to violate the principle of secrecy.
Is it a fair comparison? There the larger principle was avoiding defection…
True. But if you have to reveal the vote, is it going to be free? In the election for members of Council of States, the vote cannot be completely free since the party wants to see for whom you have voted.
Your rejection of NOTA can be interpreted by a few as ignoring the intelligence of the voter…
Studies have shown that voters are paid money before the election, the sale of liquor increases, etc. Then, in spite of the election laws, voters are ferried to the polling booth by political parties. Most often, voters end up voting for caste or community vote banks. Under such circumstances, it is naive to believe that voting is based on ideology, principles or merit of the candidate. Those who think that this judgement is a historical event, don't realise that we have around 1,500 political parties. In the Constitution Commission, a study was made of Parliament and state Assemblies and we found that on an average, 70 per cent of all those elected had more votes cast against them, than for them. Can they be called representatives of the people? The entire politics works on vote banks and if you have a committed vote bank of 15 per cent, then you are 90 per cent sure of winning the election. So, why should anyone work for more than 15 per cent? There is not a single Lok Sabha constituency in the whole country where a single caste is in majority. But there are a large number of constituencies where a particular caste is more than 15 per cent. So, how will you create this constituency of more than 50 per cent?
The Supreme Court and Parliament are coming at loggerheads on various issues. Who is to blame?
It is not a question of loggerheads since both are not meant to agree with each other. Parliament makes laws, but it is for the courts to examine them. Both have to remain within their jurisdictional limit, otherwise, a conflict arises. If the court starts taking over legislative work then, it is overreaching its powers.
The government is likely to withdraw its ordinance that protected convicted MPs and MLAs. Will the withdrawal ensure less-criminalised politics?
No, it will not lead to any reduction in criminalisation of politics. The root of criminalisation is to understand how political parties are funded. Therefore, to reduce criminalisation, there is a need is for a change in the law that ensures that if no candidate gets more than 50 per cent of votes, then next morning there should be a re-poll between the first two candidates. In the beginning, many re-polls may be necessary, but very soon, political parties will realise that they have to appeal to more than 50 per cent of people to get elected. Second, the cost of elections has to be reduced. I am not in favour of state funding of elections, but the Election Commission of India should take the responsibility of organising meetings, priniting posters, etc. However, the commission should not provide cash payments as it can be misused.
With each session, the disruptions in Parliament have increased. Vice-President Hamid Ansari was criticised for saying the House was turning into a "federation of anarchy". He, however, later retracted.
Mr Ansari's remarks were casual and should not be analysed. But unfortunately, the parliamentary culture has undergone considerable transformation. It is linked also to the composition of the House, the effectiveness of the institution of Parliament and even to the role of media. The press usually ignores a good speech for theatrics by another member.
To what extent is the present government at fault?
Ensuring proper functioning of the House is the responsibility of the government. Jawaharlal Nehru was there in the House every day - and look at our current prime minister. When the government is weak, Parliament cannot be strong. If the government is stable, it can stand a lot of criticism of itself.
In the situation, as opinion polls have suggested, both the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Congress fail to get majority, who should the President call first to form the government?
Currently, there is no clarity on this issue. It depends on the President. In my opinion, the President should send a message to the House asking it to elect its own leader. The elected leader should then be appointed as the prime minister.
After Friday's Supreme Court (SC) judgment on making the right to reject a fundamental right, are political parties likely to field better candidates?
The intentions of the judgment are good. But it is not going to result in any substantial electoral reform. Also, it will not affect the selection of candidates by political parties. The question of "None Of The Above" (NOTA) has for long been discussed by urban intellectuals and civil society. Krishan Kant, former vice-president, was one of the earliest and strongest votaries of negative voting. Perhaps, I have been in a minority for having consistently held the view that this is more of a fashionable suggestion. It emanates from armchair intellectuals.
More From This Section
First, elections are held to elect the representatives of the people. The process of NOTA goes contrary to the electoral process of the country. In the current climate, where people say all the candidates are tainted, if the suggestion of NOTA is accepted by all the voters all over the country, then the result will be that no one will get elected. This will make the electoral device dysfunctional. Hence, it defeats the purpose of holding elections. Also, it makes democracy impossible and we may face a situation of anarchy. However, fortunately, such a scenario is unlikely because it is inconceivable that a large number of voters will go for NOTA.
In reality, most often, a large majority of voters are actually taken to the polling booths. They are persuaded to vote on the basis of various kinds of temptations or under threat. It is unlikely that a voter will stand in a queue and then vote NOTA. They would rather stay at home. Also, even in the current system, a form can be filled with the returning officer if a voter wants to put on record that he wishes to vote for no one.
But the filing of the form is criticised because the identity of the voter is revealed…
Yes, after the judgment, the secrecy of the candidate will have to be maintained. However, the Supreme Court had earlier itself compromised on secrecy when it ruled in the Kuldip Nayar case that in the elections for the Council of States, electors will have to show their vote to their political parties. Hence, the Supreme Court, has itself in one of its judgment, agreed to violate the principle of secrecy.
Is it a fair comparison? There the larger principle was avoiding defection…
True. But if you have to reveal the vote, is it going to be free? In the election for members of Council of States, the vote cannot be completely free since the party wants to see for whom you have voted.
Your rejection of NOTA can be interpreted by a few as ignoring the intelligence of the voter…
Studies have shown that voters are paid money before the election, the sale of liquor increases, etc. Then, in spite of the election laws, voters are ferried to the polling booth by political parties. Most often, voters end up voting for caste or community vote banks. Under such circumstances, it is naive to believe that voting is based on ideology, principles or merit of the candidate. Those who think that this judgement is a historical event, don't realise that we have around 1,500 political parties. In the Constitution Commission, a study was made of Parliament and state Assemblies and we found that on an average, 70 per cent of all those elected had more votes cast against them, than for them. Can they be called representatives of the people? The entire politics works on vote banks and if you have a committed vote bank of 15 per cent, then you are 90 per cent sure of winning the election. So, why should anyone work for more than 15 per cent? There is not a single Lok Sabha constituency in the whole country where a single caste is in majority. But there are a large number of constituencies where a particular caste is more than 15 per cent. So, how will you create this constituency of more than 50 per cent?
The Supreme Court and Parliament are coming at loggerheads on various issues. Who is to blame?
It is not a question of loggerheads since both are not meant to agree with each other. Parliament makes laws, but it is for the courts to examine them. Both have to remain within their jurisdictional limit, otherwise, a conflict arises. If the court starts taking over legislative work then, it is overreaching its powers.
The government is likely to withdraw its ordinance that protected convicted MPs and MLAs. Will the withdrawal ensure less-criminalised politics?
No, it will not lead to any reduction in criminalisation of politics. The root of criminalisation is to understand how political parties are funded. Therefore, to reduce criminalisation, there is a need is for a change in the law that ensures that if no candidate gets more than 50 per cent of votes, then next morning there should be a re-poll between the first two candidates. In the beginning, many re-polls may be necessary, but very soon, political parties will realise that they have to appeal to more than 50 per cent of people to get elected. Second, the cost of elections has to be reduced. I am not in favour of state funding of elections, but the Election Commission of India should take the responsibility of organising meetings, priniting posters, etc. However, the commission should not provide cash payments as it can be misused.
With each session, the disruptions in Parliament have increased. Vice-President Hamid Ansari was criticised for saying the House was turning into a "federation of anarchy". He, however, later retracted.
Mr Ansari's remarks were casual and should not be analysed. But unfortunately, the parliamentary culture has undergone considerable transformation. It is linked also to the composition of the House, the effectiveness of the institution of Parliament and even to the role of media. The press usually ignores a good speech for theatrics by another member.
To what extent is the present government at fault?
Ensuring proper functioning of the House is the responsibility of the government. Jawaharlal Nehru was there in the House every day - and look at our current prime minister. When the government is weak, Parliament cannot be strong. If the government is stable, it can stand a lot of criticism of itself.
In the situation, as opinion polls have suggested, both the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Congress fail to get majority, who should the President call first to form the government?
Currently, there is no clarity on this issue. It depends on the President. In my opinion, the President should send a message to the House asking it to elect its own leader. The elected leader should then be appointed as the prime minister.