look news india
New Delhi/Special Correspondent. A historic legal debate has started in the country’s top court on fixing the accountability of public representatives who suddenly resign from assembly membership for political gain or to change sides and then contest by-elections on the same seat. The Supreme Court, while hearing the PIL, has issued a notice to the Central Government, the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the concerned parties, demanding that if an MLA resigns his seat without any valid or concrete reason and because of that re-election has to be held, then the entire government expenditure of that by-election should be recovered from the concerned MLA.
After this move of the Supreme Court, there has been an uproar in the political circles, because this matter is directly related to the misuse of hard-earned money of the taxpayers and playing with the mandate.
The case was heard by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, which included Chief Justice (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana. Taking seriously the constitutional and financial questions raised in the petition, the bench has issued notices to the Central Government, the Election Commission of India, the Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu and six former MLAs who have resigned in Tamil Nadu, seeking their official stand.
The court clarified that it is necessary to strike a balance between the security of public money and the integrity of the electoral process, which makes it mandatory to know the stand of all parties.
This petition was filed by senior advocate K. Has been filed on behalf of Suthan. The petitioner argues that in conducting general elections or by-elections in India, huge amount of administrative machinery, security forces and government treasury money is spent. When a leader resigns in the middle of the tenure for his personal political interest without any emergency or unavoidable situation, the unnecessary burden of by-election is imposed on lakhs of voters of that seat and the taxpayers of the country.
The petition urges the court to create a strict regime under which:
-
Advance recovery of election expenses: The entire administrative expenses incurred on the by-election should be recovered from the MLAs who resigned without solid legal basis. If they want to contest elections again, they should be asked to deposit an amount equal to the expenses in advance as election expense security.
-
Disqualification for five years: Leaders who leave membership without any valid reason should be disqualified from contesting elections for a period of at least five years, so that defection and artificial political crisis can be curbed.
-
Citing the 2004 Election Commission recommendations: The petition also mentioned the suggestion given by the Election Commission in 2004, in which it was said to consider charging the cost from those who created the situation of by-election by vacating seats on their own will.
This matter has not reached the Supreme Court directly, but has come before the apex court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the September 24 order of the Madras High Court. Madras High Court Chief Justice S. A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan’s bench had rejected the plea saying that the right to resign from a legislative seat is part of the constitutional scheme governing membership of the House.
The High Court was of the view that no extra-statutory financial or punitive sanctions can be imposed on MLAs through a judicial order. The High Court had remarked that setting new rules for recovery of election expenses or imposing new disqualifications is the work of Parliament and legislative policy, courts cannot make laws but can only interpret them. The petitioner challenged this legal interpretation in the Supreme Court, saying that under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is fully capable of issuing guidelines to protect public money.
The roots of this legal battle are related to the political developments that took place after the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. According to the petition, shortly after the election results were declared, six elected AIADMK MLAs resigned from their assembly seats and joined the ruling party. It is alleged that these MLAs chose the path of resignation to avoid the ongoing disqualification proceedings against them for defection or whip violation and to contest again on the ticket of a new party.
The petitioner raised the question that when a representative enjoys public confidence for full five years, is he free to leave his tenure midway due to personal ambitions and impose a re-poll cost of crores of rupees on the public exchequer? Now after the Supreme Court has issued the notice, the foundation of a new and very far-reaching legal debate has been laid in the country regarding election reforms and financial accountability of leaders.