Verdict of the People Versus Rule of Law

In May this year, the returning officer in Jayalalitaa's constituency rejected her nomination papers on the ground that a convict could not contest elections for State Assembly. Jayalalitaa could not contest these elections. Nevertheless, her party the All India Anna Dravid Munetra Kazgam swept the polls. She was not a member of the State Legislature and yet she was sworn in as the chief Minister of the State. A constitutional provision came to her rescue. This provision allows any citizen of India to hold a ministerial portfolio without being a member of the State Legislature. The catch being that this facility is only available for a maximum period of six months. Jayalalitaa took advantage of this provision and presented her claim to head the government in Tamil Nadu. The governor accepted her claim and she was formally sworn.

However, the fact that a convict was heading a State government was not acceptable. How can someone found unworthy of contesting elections become the Chief Minister? Allowed to continue, she could not only destroy evidence against her but she could set a dangerous precedent for this country paving way for criminals to hold important constitutional positions. Even a low level government functionary is suspended pending inquiry. How could a Chief Minister continue to be in office while she has been convicted. All these issues were taken to the supreme court of India, which is presently hearing arguments before a constitutional bench.

Jayalalitaa's opponents emphasize the seriousness of the situation by stating that tomorrow a murderer or a drug trafficker might take advantage of the same provision and alleviate himself in a Chief Minister's office. on the other hand, her lawyers put the will of the People above the rule of law. Their contention is that in a democracy, people's mandate is supreme. Once the people have given her the mandate, the court does not have the authority to delve into the validity of her appointment. The challenge the decision of the returning officer to disqualify her from contesting the elections in the first place.

If peoples' mandate alone validates a person's eligibility for a republican office, then what is the status of a constitution? Imprisoned criminals may easily contest elections and become ministers using their clout. They will claim that people's mandate has absolved them. Hence, they must no longer be held in prison.

Contrarily, if we accept the supremacy of the rule of law, then we must plug the loopholes in constitutional procedure. I have two suggestions on this count. Firstly, we must review Peoples Representation Act. The term convict must be redefined to guard against political victimisation. Then, we can easily bar all convicts from contesting elections at any level. Secondly, the constitution must be amended to the effect that only member of a legislature will hold ministerial offices. No person outside the legislature shall be allowed to become a Minister even for a period of six months. If these two measures are taken, Jayalalitaa's issue will never arise again.

Go To Page: 1 2

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic