PRESIDENT’S POWER TO ADJUDICATE UPON ELECTION PETITION
Why we are discussing this issue? Opening Remarks: In 2024 Lok Sabha general election was held in May. This was the 18th Lok Sabha election. All political parties offered in manifesto many promises. Freebies are offered by almost all political parties. In Delhi the local state government is sworn in thrice based on freebies. Similarly in Karnataka and Telangana the state government is elected based on freebies. The disadvantage of such freebies is the economy of the State is pulled back due to nonproductive expenses. The taxpayers do not get more advance facilities from the tax they have paid. PIL challenging freebies is pending before the Supreme Court. During Lok Sabha election we saw that one of the parties Congress have distributed a guaranteed cards along with the forms that if they come to power, they will give Rs.8500/- to every woman and Rs.1,000,00/- per year to meet major expenses. This party has won more seats than last two elections and there was religious concentration of votes. There was also a statement that the party if come to power would confiscate entire wealth and do caste survey and thereafter redistribute the same. The congress party won 99 Lok Sabha seats. However, they are in power in three states. Telangana, Himachal and Karnataka. They can offer them. But women who were given guarantee cards along with form started Queuing up outside Congress Party offices. They said we have lost. The question arise now is whether this is a blatant fraud? What does law say? The law which governs election is the Representation of peoples Act 1951 ( Said RP Act 1951) The question is whether all this statements go against the provisions of Section 123 of RP Act 1951 ? A complaint is pending before the President of India challenging election. Now question arises Can third party challenge in representative character the election of candidates who belong to a single largest party who won election on basis of guaranteed card? Who has jurisdiction to hear the election Petition under Section 123 and 8A of RP Act 1951? Does President of India have power under Section 123 or 8 A of the said R.P. Act 1951? This Act came into force on 17th July 1951. Preamble of the Act explains the purpose of its enactment. An Act to provide for the conduct of elections to the Houses of Parliament and to the House or Houses of the Legislature of each State, the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of those Houses, the corrupt 1*** practices and other offences at or in connection with such elections and the decision of doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with such elections. The terms corrupt practices is defined in the Act as “corrupt practice means any of the practices specified in section 123” What does corrupt practices mean. Section 123 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides for the same. Corrupt practices.— The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:— (1)“Bribery”, that is to say— (A) any gift, offer or promise by a candidate […]
Read more
LEAKING A VIDEO OF AN OFFICER COUNTING BALLOT PAPERS DURING THE VOTING PROCESS OF CHANDIGARH MUNICIPALITY TO SOCIAL MEDIA IS IN BREACH OF DATA PRIVACY?
Data privacy is a law and it’s in force. It came into force on 11th August 2023. Recently an election process was held for electing a Mayor in Chandigarh Municipality. The issue started with Presiding Officer Anil Mansinh looking at surveillance camera and mainly ruling Aam Adami Party lost Mayoral post. Hence an issue is raised that returning officer defaced the ballot papers. The AAP approached the Supreme Court and upon seeing the video a judgment is drawn that returning officer Anil Mansinh tempered the ballot paper. There are two issues: The video presented in court is available on social media platform and all are interpreting the way they want. This is breach of #dataprivacy. How we will discuss here. Can court become judgmental by declaring returning officer guilty without scrutinizing the records? Is court pre-decisive and judgmental in this case? DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: [A] The video presented in court is available on social media platform and all are interpreting the way they want. This is breach of #dataprivacy. While answering point No.i let us go back to recent history of constitution bench judgment in which current CJI was a part of it. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2017), also known as the Right to Privacy verdict, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India, held that, the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. A nine-judge bench of J. S. Khehar, J. Chelameswar, S. A. Bobde, R. K. Agrawal, R. F. Nariman, A. M. Sapre, D. Y. Chandrachud, S. K. Kaul, and S. A. Nazeer unanimously held that “the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.” It explicitly overruled previous judgements of the Supreme Court in Kharak Singh vs. State of UP and M.P. Sharma vs. Union of India, which held that there is no fundamental right to privacy under the Indian Constitution. This judgment settled this position of law and clarified that the Right to Privacy could be infringed upon only when there was a compelling state interest in doing so. This position was the same as with the other fundamental rights . Supreme Court ruled that Right to Privacy is “intrinsic to life and personal liberty” and is inherently protected under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. DATA PROTECTION: Central Government passed an Act to provide for the processing of digital personal data in a manner that recognises both the right of individuals to protect their personal data and the need to process such personal data for lawful purposes and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The definition of the term data under this Act is as under : (h) “data” means a representation of information, facts, concepts, opinions or instructions in a manner suitable for communication, interpretation or processing by human beings or by […]
Read more
MAHARASHTRA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT LACUNAE ABUSE OF POWER AN ANALYSIS AND SUGGESTIONS
“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a men’s character, give him power.” Said Abraham Lincoln This aptly applies to the Managing Committee of a society. Once the power comes neighbor becomes your Master. There are many incidents where the committee manipulates bills and contracts, and even in redevelopment cases three honorary office bearers Secretary, Chairman, and Treasurer have weightage in the finalization of the deal. We see litigations and stalling of projects of a housing society. Human tendency is such that they think of self-gain, instead of taking care and executing responsibilities that they have taken with utmost care and truthfulness. Corrupt minds see financial benefits in every deal. They forget that while doing this they prejudice the property and interests of other flat members. Election: 1 With the new election rules, an election is held similarly to the way in which how elections are held in any Assembly and Parliament. Cartel is formed and elections are won. It has killed the neighborhood’s love, respect, and honor. One family and one flat provision are also violated royally. Even if distant relatives or cousins have a cartel. This creates a monopoly in management. Suggestion: Like Multi Co-operative society, provide that same member or any other joint member from one flat cannot contest the consecutive election. The flat owners/member must take a break or drop out from the next election to give an opportunity to other flat owners/members. So, after serving for 5 years the said member/flat owner cannot contest election for immediate subsequent another term. This will reduce the monopoly of a few flat owners and their families, and their friends. For the convenience of the readers and lawmakers reproduced below is the provision of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act,2002 below which restricts reelection after two terms. Prohibition to hold the office of chairperson or president or vice chairperson or vice president in certain cases (1) No member of a board shall be eligible to be elected as the chairperson or president or vice-chairperson or vice-president of a multi-state cooperative society if such member is a Minister in the Central Government or a State Government. (2) No member of a board shall be eligible to be elected as the chairperson or president of a multi-state cooperative society, after he has held the office as such during two consecutive terms, whether full or part: Provided that a member who has ceased to hold the office of the chairperson or president continuously for one full term shall again be eligible for election to the office as such. Explanation:- where any member holding the office of the chairperson or president at the commencement of this Act is against elected to that office after such commencement, he shall for the purpose of this section, be deemed to have held office for one term before such election. Proposed Suggestion : A similar principle must be applied to the housing society. A.2 A Managing Committee was disqualified for 5 years, and an administrator was appointed. Managing Committee manages to suppress the facts from members of the society and manages that the […]
Read more