Steps to keep criminals out have failed: Election Commission

NEW DELHI : The directions issued by the Supreme Court in 2018 to give publicity to the criminal antecedents of candidates contesting elections has failed to yield the desired result of decriminalizing politics, the Election Commission of India (EC) told the apex court on Friday.

A bench of justices Rohinton Nariman and S Ravindra Bhat agreed to consider whether directions can be issued to political parties to deny tickets to persons with criminal background.

The court was hearing a contempt plea filed by advocate and

BJP spokesperson Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay who alleged that despite directions by the Supreme Court, the government and the EC failed to take steps for decriminalisation of politics. The court asked the EC to come up with a proposal to address the issue. In its judgment delivered on September 25, 2019, the top court had recommended enactment of a strong law to decriminalize politics. It had issued directions to contesting candidates to disclose details of pending criminal cases against them in the form provided by the EC. It had also ordered political parties to publicise on their websites and in print and electronic media the criminal antecedents of its candidates.

Upadhyay submitted that the EC issued directions to political parties but did not make the necessary amendments to the rules governing this field, so its directions did not have any legal sanctions. Further, the EC did not give a list of leading newspapers and news channels wherein the criminal antecedents had to be publicised, so political parties did so in unpopular newspapers and news channels and at odd hours when people don’t watch TV.

The plea said that the consequences of permitting criminals to contest elections and become legislators were serious.

SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE THE CALL: ZAIDI

With regard to a call made by Zaidi to additional SP Bhupinder Singh on January 6, 2020, the counsel submitted that it done by the IG only to know whether the prosecution witness Soumya Sambasivan was coming for her deposition on the date of hearing on January 8,2020, or not, so that the defence could accordingly finalise its questionnaire for her cross-examination.”

“However, on the hindsight, the accused feels that he should not have made the call for even such an innocuous query, especially considering the unnecessary alarm which it seems to have caused to the witness,” said the counsel.

THIS KIND OF ACT IS NOT EXPECTED FROM A TOP COP: JUDGE

CBI special judge Sushil Kumar Garg said: “The accused (Zaidi) had violated the terms and conditions of the bail bonds and personal bonds. He has tried to intimidate, pressure and influence the prosecution witness Soumya with an intent to change her statement.”

“This kind of act and conduct cannot be expected from such a high-rank officer of the police department. If he can intimidate, pressure, influence another officer of a senior rank, there is every possibility of him pressuring other (low-rank) witnesses of the department,” he further observed.

“It is pertinent to mention that only 28 witnesses have been examined to date out of 107 witnesses. The other material witnesses are yet to be examined. Thus, the act and conduct of Zaidi is not worthy of credit and violates the terms and conditions of the bail bonds,” the judge observed, while cancelling the bail.