Navigation Photography

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Do you want Abu Salem in Parliament? - 2

Here is what I've mailed across to the two people mentioned towards the end of the previous post. Please write something similar and mail the Committee members. It is no use talking about corruption if you are not willing to do something about it yourself.

"There are 11 Ministers and 98 Members of Parliament in the current Lok Sabha that are formally charged with some crime. I think this is horrendous and does not bode well for the future of this nation. I believe it is high time that we as Indians stamp out corrupted, tainted ministers, criminals, and various anti-social elements from the Parliament and State Assemblies. It is wonderful that The Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, presently considering the subject “Electoral Reforms” is asking the general public for their opinion.

In my opinion, it is extremely necessary for any person formally charged with a crime carrying a sentence of TWO years or more by a competent Court to be barred from contesting elections. A person who has been charged by a competent Court should be barred from contesting election even if he has not been convicted. We all know that the due process of law in India can easily be subverted and cases drag on for decades without conviction. Hence the Committee’s recommendation of disqualifying a person only after being convicted of a crime carrying a sentence of 5 years is very wrong, and goes against greater public interest.

I also suggest that legislators who are so CHARGED after being elected should mandatorily seek fast track disposal of their cases within six months of charges being framed. Legislators who are CONVICTED after being elected should automatically be disqualified even if they go on appeal in a higher court. In case a candidate is charged six months prior to the date of elections, he or she can approach a competent Court asking for swift disposal of the case."

5 comments:

poupee97 said...

Hey,

Just wanted to let you know that I totally disagree with anonymous. I think what you are doing is great, these are inconveniences we all face and you are doing what each of us should be doing. Don't let the naysayers get you down!

BTW, were you and your better half at the Blank Noise demo last Sunday? Just curious?

vanka77 said...

This is a very nice intiative.
But I am curious --- does this mean that if I were to stand for elections tomorrow to the Parliament or show interest in doing so (and let us just assume here that I have the popularity to give the sitting MP a run for his monney) would charging me with a criminal case (and we all know it can be done if you know the right people) be an easy way to get me out of the race ?

Sorry for the multiple parantheses...but I hope you get my point.
I am sure this was considered and there is a way this situation can be avoided..but I am just curious.

Hawkeye said...

Good point. Which is why the 6 month clause was put in. You should have been charged 6 months prior to the date on which the elections will be held. This should reduce the chances of a false charge being brought against you. Moreover, you would need to be charged by a competent court and trial proceedings should have started. It is not enough that another person files charges against you; the police should have investigated, matter should have gone to court, trail should have started. It may not be very easy for someone to maliciously do all these.

Hawkeye said...

@poupee: none, we ve family engagements too ;)

Anonymous said...

I was meaning to send a letter to the concerned person as well. Forgot about the deadline, saw your post, and did send an email. Thanks for the post.