Two years ago, Anna Hazare swept the nation with his call for the Lokpal Bill to cleanse the corrupt in the Indian Parliament. His movement attracted millions who called for transformation in a land they believed had become fecund for scams and slums, aided by those in power.
While debates still rage around the Lokpal Bill, the Supreme Court, in a laudable step towards cleaning the political system, recently ruled that convicted lawmakers cannot serve in state or national legislatures, even if the conviction is being appealed. It barred politicians behind bars from contesting elections in the future, a verdict that sent political parties into a tizzy.
Thisruling was described as the first step towards “breaking up the nexus between politics and criminals” by lawyer Lily Thomas, who had filed the petition in 2005. Top political parties put up a brave front and gave a not-so-convincing thumbs-up to the order. Congress’ RenukaChowdhury welcomed the move, but expressed concern that it could be misused; while the BJP was quick to remind of its commitment to a cleaner nation.
There is no doubt that the verdict is exemplary. And like the Anna movement itself, it attracted both critics and acclaim from the world over.
The Indian media welcomed the move by the apex court. In an editorial, The Indian Express hailed the order which it termed as judicial activism. “This was long overdue”, said the paper. Firstpostdeliberated on the Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which prevented lawmakers with dubious records to continue their political career despite convictions. In the new India, with decades of parliamentary democracy and a reliable judiciary to its credit, a criminal conviction should be an indicator of a lawmaker’s suitability, the news portal contended. It noted the irony too: most seats in Parliament would go empty if a criminal record were considered a ground for disqualification.
Times Of India lauded the judicial intervention and also argued that the court should “consider putting all pending cases on the fast track with a disposal time limit of, say, three months for each case” and strengthen laws to bring these cases to logical conclusion at the earliest than having them hang in balance for decades.
Uttar Pradesh’s daily The Hans quoted a senior leader of the ruling Samajwadi Party on anonymity, as saying, “If the Supreme Court verdict is implemented in toto, the strength of the assembly will go down by half” and further observed that records show that of the 403 legislators in the country’s most populous state that sends the largest number of 80 MPs to Parliament, 189 have serious criminal cases – ranging from robbery, murder, rape to kidnapping and extortion – pending against them.
The judgement did not go unnoticed in the foreign press as well, which responded positively to the new ruling. The Wall Street Journal noted that the Indian Supreme Court “has been a major force behind attempts to reform the political and judicial systems, trying to make them more transparent” and that India’s political parties follow an “opaque process of selecting candidates, rather than using primaries”.
UK’s Daily Mail carried a list of the “big fish” who could be in trouble due to the judgement. These included: Lalu Prasad, Suresh Kalmadi, A Raja, Kanimozhi, Uttar Pradesh’s Mayawati and Mulayam Singh and Gujarat’s Amit Shah. It also lauded Lily Thomas and carried a picture of her in wheelchair, calling her “the crusader who stands her ground despite adversities in her fight for establishing a just order.”
The Financial Times argued that the judgement will help the Parliament function normally: “Last September, Manmohan Singh, the Congress prime minister, accused the BJP of a “negation of democracy” for disrupting the monsoon session of parliament. Parliamentary proceedings are frequently suspended amid shouting and protests both inside and outside the chamber of the lower house.”
Not far from home, Dubai’s The National termed the ruling a milestone in Indian politics for it came at a time when “the government of the prime minister, Manmohan Singh, has been rocked by a series of graft scandals involving mobile phone licences, coalfields and the 2010 Commonwealth Games in New Delhi, among other issues.”
The Oman Tribune wondered if the political parties were nervous with the judgement. It quoted the CPI (M): “This is a drastic judgement which will infringe on the democratic rights of citizens. A person who is an under-trial prisoner, who is not convicted of any offence, or a person who is in police custody without having faced a trial and conviction will be deprived of the right to contest elections.”
However, it said the decision will prick the conscience of the political class in the country and lead them to a new direction.
No matter what the reactions to the judgement are, there is no doubt that the apex court is trying to recast people’s faith in democracy and their own elected members. The ruling also gives political parties time of a year to straighten their act and internal course correction since all parties are beginning the process of selecting suitable candidates for 2014 polls.
Feedback: abatra@exchange4media.com
