Report on the Fifth General Elections in India 1971-72: Narrative and Reflective Part

REPORT ON THE FIFTH GENERAL ELECTIONS IN INDIA 1971-72 NARRATIVE AMD REFLECTIVE PA 1. " since it is plainljf contrary ...

Author: Election Commission of India

332 downloads 774 Views 13MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

REPORT ON THE

FIFTH GENERAL ELECTIONS IN INDIA 1971-72

NARRATIVE AMD REFLECTIVE PA 1. " since it is plainljf contrary to the law of nature, however defined, that children should command 'old men, fools wise men, and that the privileged few should gorge themselves with superfluities, while the starving multitude are in want of, the |tare necessities of life." ,v .# —Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract. 2. "The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people." —per Brandies, J., in Whitney vs. California, (1927) 274 u.s. 357 at p. 375.

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

P R E F A C E The Fifth General Elections to the Lok Sabha in the early part of 1971 and the Fifth General Elections to the Legislative Assemblies of 19 States and Union territories a year thereafter marked the culmination of momentous events in the political and election history of India. As a matter of fact, the period after the Fourth General Elections of 1967 was a very crucial period. The political atmosphere in the country underwent a remarkable change. In the 1967 General Elections the Indian National Congress lost its overwhelming majority in the House of the People which it had hitherto enjoyed in that House and could form a government at tine Ceivtie with what might be regarded as a slender majority; it also failed to form government in a number of States because it failed to win any majority at all. This was followed in a number of States by the formation of coalition governments known variously as United Front or SVD (Samyukta Vidhayak Dal) governments and a period of instability, governmental, administrative and political and a spell of President's rule. Bickerings of a very mean type started among the political parties and rumblings of discontent and dis-satisfaction started becoming audible within a number of parties, and specially, the Indian National Congress. Factionalism and groupism raised their heads. The politicians by and large forgot the greater and broader interests of the country. Every attempt started being made tO'push into the background those few among the politicians who thought in terms of national interests. It was said of George Washington that among the politicians of his time only he and a few others could think "continentally". Here also after the 1967—Fourth General Elections—only a microscopic few among the politicians could think in terms of India as a whole, but, as already stated, their position was extremely precarious. Indeed this period was the darkest period in the political history of India after Independence. It was clear that India was in the middle of the deepest and darkest woods and was groping for a way out. In this state of affairs mid-term general elections had to be held in a number of States in 1968-69, such as, Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal. But the political problems to solve which these mid-term general elections were held, showed hardly any signs of abatement; on the contrary, they became worse and more complex in States like West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Punjab. At this critical juncture of our history came the sudden death of the serving President, Dr. Zakir Husain, on the 3rd May, 1969, and the already dark political situation became darker and the whole atmosphere became very acute, tense and exciting throughout the whole country over the selection of the Presidential candidate in July of that year. Even the other important political parties got involved in the issue. This controversy brought to the surface the simmering discontent which was accumulating in the Indian National Congress and this led to the Great Schism in the Indian National Congress to which there was hardly any parallel in the history of political parties in the world. Perhaps, the only case, which came near this Great Divide was the Great Schism in the Whig Party in Great Britain in the year 1796. This split in its turn

(ii)

led to the great Congress Symbol case. Even before the decision in that case was given by the Election Commission, the President dissolved, on the advice of the Prime Minister, the House of the People in the night of the 27th December, 1970 about fifteen months before the expiration of its normal duration of five years. In this state of tension, stress, confusion and flux, the prophets of doom, both inside and outside the country, started expressing serious misgivings and doubts as to the very survival of democracy in this Great Land. In this they perhaps derived some secret mental joy and delight. They, perhaps, forgot that in any major crisis in the history of India from ancient times the deathless Spirit of this Land survived the onslaught of adverse and hostile circumstances. The people of this great and ancient land had all through history shown an uncanny sense which impelled them so to say, in doing what was best for the good of the country and saved the land from any disaster which might otherwise have befallen the whole race. The Supreme Dispenser of India's Destiny (Bharata Bhagya Vidhata) on every such occasion had blown into the soul of India that elixir-giving inspiration which imparted rejuvenated vigour to her vital, moral and spiritual forces. Sri Aurobindo many years back in a letter to his young wife, while describing his third madness said—"Whereas others regard the country as an inert object and know it as the plains, the fields, the forests, the mountains and the rivers, I know my country as the Mother, I worship and adore it as the Mother". The people of this country—the Gana Devata (mass-dei), did assert themselves this time also to vindicate the honour of the Mother by ensuring the safety of Democracy and free government of the people. Which party won the election was not very material because in a free democracy there must necessarily be more political parties than one and the people may choose at any particular time any particular political party to take the reins of the government. As the great democrat Thomas Jefferson said in a letter to John Adams on June 27, 1813, at any time and place where men are free to think and to speak, differences in opinion will lead to formation of different political parties. It is no doubt highly desirable that the number of such political parties should be limited. But. that again will depend upon the free opinion and free action of the citizens. What is of material importance for our purpose is that the people by the exercise of their free will sent one political party to the Lok Sabha with an absolute majority. The misgivings and doubts, which were, entertained and expressed about the survival of democracy in India, were thus dispelled by the Fifth General Elections to Lok Sabha. The Fifth General Elections to the various Legislative Assemblies a year later were held in a better atmosphere, notwithstanding some sporadic violent incidents here and there. We should not forget in this connection that the electorate in this country is in the neighbourhood of about 300 millions and the total population is more than 547 millions. Therefore, it is not always possible to exclude some disturbances here and there during the period of countrywide general elections. In preparing this Report I have tried to deal with and analyse the various facts, events and circumstances, which cropped up in connection with these two countrywide general elections and their tendencies and implications.

(iii) One special feature of this Report which may be of use and interest to the readers relates to detailed information given partywise of candidates elected in the Fifth General Elections with fifty per cent or more of the votes polled and of those elected with less than fifty per cent of the votes. In the conduct of the elections great help was received from the various agencies of the Government, such as the Press Information Bureau, the All India Radio, the Directorate of Advertising & Visual Publicity, the Films Division and the Posts and Telegraphs Department, and from the various news agencies, the newspapers throughout the country, the Government of India Presses and the various State Government Presses throughout the country. I avail myself of this opportunity to express my sincere thanks as well as sincere thanks of the Commission to each of them. I shall be failing in my duty if I do not express my appreciation of the help and assistance received from Shri A. N. Sen, Secretary of the Election Commission of India. He made available to me at very short notice from the records of the Secretariat of the Commission whatever materials I requested him to supply, to Shri K. Ganesan, Under Secretary (Legal) and Shri P. N. Mago, Superintendent (Legal) for their help in making available to me the files relating to various matters on which I recorded copious notes on points of election law, practice and procedure and constitutional law and also for their close scrutiny with the help of Shri L. C. Goel, Assistant (to whom also I express my sincere thanks) of the final manuscript before sending it to the Prefs; and to Shri R. D. Sharma, Under Secretary in charge of Statistics and Delimitation work for making available to me the figures and statistics relating to general elections. Lastly, my heartfelt thanks are due to Shri M. L. Sard of my personal staff who bore the main burden of taking dictation of this Report, to Shri O. P. Wadhawan, my Senior Personal Assistant who also took some dictation, to Shri A. D. Ahuja also of my personal staff who did a lot in comparing the typed copies, and, to Shri Tilak Raj, my Private Secretary, under whose direction, supervision and guidance all of them worked. I also express my sincere thanks to Shri P. K. S. Narayanan, Section Officer, Shri S. D. Pershad, Assistant, Shri S. K. Mendiratta, Assistant, Shri T. S. Dali, Assistant and Shri Ram Chander, Assistant for their services in supplying to me the necessary material for the preparation of this report and also for meticulously checking the proofs. I am also recording my high appreciation of the personal services rendered by my jamadar, Shri Mangat Ram who has been much more to me than "Jeeves" was to his master. But for their help and co-operation it would not have been possible for me to finish the Report within the short space of time which was available to me for this purpose before relinquishing charge of office of the Chief Election Commissioner of India. S. P. SEN-VARMA, Chief Election Commissioner of India New Delhi, The 29th September, 1972.

TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I

FIFTH GENERAL ELECTION TO THE LOK SABHA, 1971 Page No. Chapter I

Dissolution of the House of the People

Chapter II

Electoral Rolls and Preparation for Holding the General Election

1—10

Caapter HI

Adult Franchise and its Implications — A lesson and A Warning

19—26

Chapter IV

Writs and Programmes for the General Election

.

.

.

27—38

Chapter V

From Nomination to Withdrawal of Candidatures .

.

.

39—44

Chapter VI

The Campaign Period

11—18

45—70

Chapter VII The Poll

71—91

Chapter VIII The Counting of Votes and the Declaration of Results

>

.

92—122

PART II

FIFTH GENERAL ELECTION TO THE STATE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES, 1972 Chapter IX

General Elections to the Legislative Assemblies

.

.•

.

123—176

PART III

GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS Chapter X

Election Expenses

177—186

Chapter XI

Corrupt Practices in Elections and Election Petitions

.

.

Chapter XII Innovations and Improvements Chapter XIII Unreason in Election Politics

187—198] 199—206

.

.

.

.

.

. 207—234

Chapter XIV Reflections on the Change of Election System : The List System

235—-243

Chapter XV Conclusion

244—245

REPORT ON THE FIFTH GENERAL ELECTIONS, 1971-72 "The spirit of true equality is as far from that of extreme equality, as the sky is from the earth. The first does not consist in a system where everyone commands or no one takes orders, but in a system in which one commands and obeys one's own equals. Its aim is not to have no masters at all, but to have only one's equals as masters." — Montesquieu, — L'Espirit des lois, Bk. VIII, Chapter II.

"If democracy is to survive it will have to employ and use every bit of skill and knowledge and leadership it can get hold of. This complicated interdependent world, in which we are living cannot be run without knowledge and skill, foresight and leadership. Any cult of incompetence can only lead to disaster." — A. D. Lindsay, The Modern Democratic State, page 261.

Part I THE FIFTH GENERAL ELECTION TO THE LOK SABHA, 1971

CHAPTER I DISSOLUTION OF THE HOUSE OF THE PEOPLE 1. "There is a tide in the affairs of men Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows and in miseries." — Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Brutus to Cassius Act IV, Sc. III. 2. "To be, or not to be: that is the question, Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them." — Shakespeare, Hamlet, Hamlet's Soliloquy, Act III, Sc. I. 3. "No politician can make a situation. His skill consists in his well playing the game dealt to him by fortune following the indications given him by nature, times and circumstances." — Edmund Burke in a letter to Gilbert Elliot (1st Lord Minto, Governor General of India from 1807-1813), quoted by Lord Morley, Secretary of State for India in a letter to Governor General and Viceroy, Lord Minto on June 17, 1908 — Vide "India, Minto and Morley" (1934) by Mary, Countess of Minto at page 241. The Schism of Indian National Congress reduced the Parliamentary Party of that group of the Congress of which Shrimati Indira Gandhi was the Leader and Shri Jagjivan Ram was the President to a minority in the Lok Sabha consisting of about 520 members at that time. The strength of that group which by that time had come to be known as Congress (R) was a little less than 225. Therefore, the government led by the Prime Minister Shrimati Indira Gandhi after the Split had to depend in the House of the People to which it was collectively responsible, for the approval of its policies and actions, for the enactment of laws sponsored by it, for the sanctioning of the money demanded, and other financial measures proposed by it, on the support of other parties and groups in Parliament. The position in any parliamentary democracy of a Prime Minister who heads a minority government is always a precarious one. The Prime Minister of such a minority government is always between the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, he or she might like to have the policies and actions of the Government quickly approved by Parliament but on the other hand, he or she even in spite of the best intentions

2

DISSOLUTION OF THE HOUSE OF THE PEOPLE

might not be in a position to go the whole hog, because he or she could not do so unless assured of support from other parties and groups. And there may not be always any assurance of such support. In such a predicament the position of the Leader of the party in power becomes almost intolerable. Ultimately a moment comes when a bold decision is required and a step forward becomes necessary regardless of the consequences which may follow the taking of such decision and step. It seems these considerations impelled Shrimati Indira Gandhi to advise the President to dissolve the House of the People in the night of the 27th December, 1970. This inference is supported by her speech which was broadcast to the Nation from the All India Radio, New Delhi, in that very night shortly after the issue of the President's Order under Article 85 (2) (b) of the Constitution dissolving the House of the People. In her speech she said— "There comes a time in the life of a Nation when the government of the day has to take an unusual step to cut through difficulties in order to solve the pressing problems with which the country is beset." "The present is such a time. Therefore, on the advice of the Council of Ministers, the President has dissolved the Lok Sabha before its full term. In a parliamentary democracy this is not unusual, but in India it has happened for the first time." Why she took this step in advising the President to dissolve the House of the People, she explained in the course of her broadcast— "It is because we are not merely concerned with remaining in power but with using that power to ensure a better life to the vast majority of our people and to satisfy their aspirations for a just social order. In the present situation, we feel we cannot go ahead with our proclaimed programme and keep our pledges to our people." Several points were raised after the dissolution of the Lok Sabha by the President. In the first place, the point was raised by some persons that the President had no power to dissolve the Lok Sabha before the completion of its normal duration of five years referred to in clause (2) of article 83 of the Constitution. It must be said that those who raised tiiis point had not carefully read the provisions of our Constitution or were not conversant with the British constitutional practice in this connection which has been formulated in words in our Constitution in black and white in article 83 (2) and in article 85 (2). Under article 83 (2) it is laid down that the House of the People, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer and the expiration of the said period of five years shall operate as a dissoluton of the House. It is not necessary to refer to the proviso in this connection, but the words "unless sooner dissolved" are very pertinent in this connection. They clearly show that the House of the People may be dissolved sooner than the expiration of the period of five years. Then, article 85 (2) clearly provides inter alia that "the


3

President may from time to time dissolve the House of the People." The words in italics above are important in this connection. They show that the President has the power to dissolve the House of the People from time to time. Moreover, in principle also it seems almost unthinkable that the Head of the State in a parliamentary democracy in which the Government, that is, the Council of Ministers, is collectively responsible to the Lower House of the Legislature, should not have the power to dissolve the Lower House before the expiration of its normal duration. If such were the constitutional position, then even a breakdown of the Constitution might be the result. Suppose, the party in power enjoys majority in the House but only a slender one or has ceased to enjoy majority in the House. Then if the President has no power of dissolution on the advice of the Prime Minister, that is, of the Council of Ministers, then the Council of Ministers may take a decision to resign (and no one can stop such resignation) to avoid criticism for its failure or inability to carry into effect its promises made to the electorate at the time of election and if in such a contingency the opposition parties are not in a position to form a Government because they do not command a majority or because they fail to agree to form a Government, then the result is a constitutional deadlock. But even then, the House of the People must, on our hypothesis, continue because it must run its full course, and no one can dissolve it. Or suppose, none of the parties after the election has any majority in the House to enable it to form a Government, even then the House will continue in existence. Thus it is easy to envisage a situation which will mean an end of a parliamentary democracy and the emergence of an irresponsible Government in the shape of Presidential form of Government or in the shape of an irresponsible Council of Ministers or the emergence of pure anarchy. In other words, in a parliamentary democracy with a cabinet form of Government where the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lower House, the full term for the Lower House cannot be ensured and guaranteed in the Constitution; the power to dissolve the Lower House before the expiration of its full term must be vested in the Head of the State. The power of earlier dissolution of the Lower House thus is inherent in the very concept of parliamentary democracy. It is only where as in a Presidential form of Government where the Executive is not responsible to the Legislature, that the Lower House enjoys its full span of life as fixed by the Constitution. This is why in a parliamentary democracy members of the Lower House have no fixed term of office. Thus, there is no provision either in the Constitution of India or in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 fixing a term of the office of the members of the House of the People. Article 83 (1) lays down that the Council of States shall not be subject to dissolution but as nearly as possible one-third of the members thereof shall retire as soon as may be on the expiration of every second year. Then section 154 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides for a fixed term of office for the members of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha), namely, six years but there is no section in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 providing any fixed term of office either for a member of the House of the People or for a member of the State Legislative Assembly. A fixed term of office is also provided for a member of the Legislative Council of a State which is the Upper House of the State Legislature

4


in some States under section 156 of the aforesaid Act. We may now refer to the constitutional provisions of some other countries. Section 50 of the British North America -Act, 1867, which is the Constitution of Canada provides as follows : — "Duration of House of Commons.

50. — Every House of Commons shall continue for Five Years from the day of the Return of the Writs for choosing the House (subject to be sooner dissolved by the Governor General), and no longer."

Simlarly, section 28 of the Australian Constitution as incorporated in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act reads as follows :— "28.—Every House of Representatives shall continue for three years from the first meeting of the House, and no longer, but may he sooner dissolved by the Governor General." I am referring only to the constitutional provisions of Canada and Australia because parliamentary democracy in these two countries on the pattern of Great Britain has been in vogue for a long time, in Canada since the year 1867 and in Australia since the year 1900. Thus, as has been mentioned earlier, the power to dissolve the Lower House of the Legislature earlier than the expiration of its normal duration is inherent in parliamentary democracy in which the Executive Government, namely, the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lower House. But this is not so in a Presidential form of Government where the Chief Executive, namely, the President is an irresponsible executive, that is, he is not responsible to the Legislature at all. And only in such a case the Lower House of the Legislature has a fixed term of duration which means that every member of the Lower House holds office for a fixed term of years. Thus, section 2(1) of Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America is as follows : "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature." From the above provisions of the Constitution of the United States, it will appear that every member of the House of Representatives has, unlike a member of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom Parliament or of the House of Commons of the Canadian Parliament or of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia or of the House of the People of the Parliament of India, a fixed term of years and this is because the Chief Executive is not responsible to the House and the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch of the Government perform their functions more or less on parallel and co-ordinate lines.


5

In Great Britain dissolution of Parliament hardly coincides with its maximum life of five years. As Glyn Parry observes in his book "British Government" (1969) at pages 56 et seq-— "Whilst the maximum life of Parliament is five years, since 1832 only one Parliament, namely, the 1959-64 Parliament, (the War Parliaments of 1914-18 and 1939-45 are exceptions here because of the extraordinary situations) has lasted the full term provided by the Statute. All other Parliaments have been dissolved by the Monarch, on the advice of the Prime Minister, before they have run their full term. In other words, the head of the Government of the day determines the date of the General Election, and he usually decides on a date, within the last two years of the life of Parliament, which is most favourable to the fortunes of his party." The opposition parties may not naturally like this but this is an advantage enjoyed by the party in power in every country where parliamentary system of government prevails. And dissolution of Parliament is a very handy instrument with the Executive Government. Whenever the Government considers that the time is favourable for obtaining the people's verdict for its party, any intelligent government would not desist from advising the Head of the State to dissolve Parliament. As Ian Gilmour has observed in his Book "The Body Politic" (1969) at page 152,— "Certainly dissolution is too useful a weapon for Governments to neglect." This being the constitutional position in our country which is in accordance with the constitutional position in Great Britain on whose model our Constitution has been framed, there was hardly any substance in the point which was raised after the dissolution of the Lok Sabha on the 27th December, 1970. Then, the point was raised as to whether the Government headed by Shrimati Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister could constitutionally continue in office after such dissolution. Here also I should say there was no substance in the point raised. A writ petition was filed before the Madras High Court challenging the authority of the Council of Ministers to continue in office after the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. An appeal against the decision of the High Court was taken to the Supreme Court. The name of the case is U.N.R. Rao Versus Smt. Indira Gandhi AIR (1971) S.C. 1002. In that case the Supreme Court held that — (i) In interpreting the Constitution, which established a Parliamentary form of Government as in the United Kingdom, the conventions prevalent at the time the Constitution was framed. should be kept in mind. (ii) Article 53 (1) vests executive powers in the President but the President too is not above the Constitution. The oath taken by him under article 60 also binds him. 3EC/72-2

6


(iii) Article 74 (1) like article 52 is mandatory and, therefore, the word 'shall' should not be read as 'may' otherwise the whole concept of Executive will be changed. The President cannot exercise the executive power without the 'aid and advice' of the Council of Ministers. He is the 'formal head' of the Executive though the real power lies in the cabinet. This finding of the Supreme Court is exactly in consonance with the British constitutional practice. In Great Britain also on the dissolution of Parliament the Ministry does not cease to exist or is not required to resign; the Ministry continues in office. Even if it resigns, a new Ministry is immediately formed because the Government cannot be carried on unless there is a Council of Ministers to 'aid and advise' the British Monarch. It is formally established under the British Constitution that the advice to dissolve by the Prime Minister is absolutely necessary and that at no point of time can the British Monarch rule the country except in accordance with the 'aid and advice' of the Council of Ministers. Public affairs must be conducted by the Council of Ministers in the name of 'formal head' of State. There has been no instance in British constitutional practice since the establishment of cabinet system of government under which the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the popular chamber, in which the British Monarch exercised the executive powers of the Government on his own without any advisers, that is, the Council of Ministers. The point has been thoroughly discussed by Sir Ivor Jennings at various places in his book "Cabinet Government." In this connection a brief reference may be made to the commonly view that the Government which continues in office after dissolution Caretaker Government, but this popular view is not correct. As Jennings has observed in his Book "Cabinet Government" in foot-note on page 86 of Third Edition, —•

held is a Ivor (1)

"Since this book is used in other Commonwealth countries, it should be explained that it is not British practice to appoint a 'Caretaker Government' for the duration of a general election. It was done in 1945 because the wartime coalition had broken-up. The electors had to decide whether they wanted a Conservative Government or a Labour Government, and meanwhile the King's service had to be carried on. This was quite exceptional. The Government which advises the dissolution remains in office throughout the election and continues to do so after the election, unless it is defeated. A few changes of office may be necessitated by ministers losing their seats, but the Government as a whole remains in being unless it is defeated. The most recent example is that of 1955, when Sir Anthony Eden's Government remained in office throughout the election." The next point is that the dissolution of the House of the People, ordered by the President, on the 27th December, 1970, was criticised by the opposition parties because it came as a surprise, because they did not anticipate such dissolution before the expiration of the full term of the House of the People. A snap election is never generally liked by the


7

opposition but in a parliamentary democracy the party in power does not fail to avail itself of such a snap election if the circumstances prevailing are considered to be in its favour. The opposition parties should do well to remember that the last year or the last eighteen months of a normal duration of the legislature should be a period of extreme vigilance on their part. But it does not seem that the opposition parties exercised the necessary vigilance during the period of one year or eighteen months before the dissolution of the Lok Sabha on the 27th December, 1970, although there were several indications to that effect. It has been stated on good authority that the results of the bye-elections during that period should have served as a signal to the political parties in this respect. "A bye-election result is a coded signal from the voters to the politicians" observed the Guardian Weekly of June 5, 1971, commenting upon the result of some bye-elections in Great Britain in each of which the Labour candidates defeated the Conservative candidates within eleven months after the general election of June, 1970. In the bye-elections to the House of the People and the State Legislative Assemblies which took place during the one year period preceding the dissolution of the House of the People, victory in the majority of the cases went in favour of the candidates set up by the Congress (R). The following table shows this :—

TABLE

^

Seats won by Parties at the Bye-elections held between 1-1-1970 to 31-12-1970 Name of the House

Total No. of bye-elections

Seats won by INC

•

•

—

House of the People

INCO

BJS

,

.

Legislative Assemblies of all States.

5

..

42

20

4

25

4

,. 2

, .

5

1

BAC

BKD

JAP

DMK

.

9

. Total:

CPI ..

SAD

-

1

1

..

2

1

_

.. 1

.. 1

KSP

—— 1ND

..

2

|

2

1

,

t-1 8

,

2

2

1

— —

2

1

1

2

o

-

1

10

S _• O ^

K , INC

INCO

,

,

,

a

Indian National Congress.

§

Indian National Congress (Organisation)

jg

BJS

Bharatiya Jana Sangh.

O

CPI

Communist Party of India.

H

BAC

Bangla Congress

w

BKD

Bharatiya Kranti Dal

w

JAP

Janata Party

fS

DMK SAD

Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. Shiromani Akali Dal.

KSP

Kerala Samyukta Socialist Party.

IND

Independent.

n

DISSOLUTION OF THE HOUSE OF THE PEOPLF

9

The last of those bye-elections was the Maniram bye-election in Uttar ?tadesh. The poll in this bye-election was taken on the 24th January, 1971. The then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Shri T. N. Singh who was and even now is a sitting member of the Rajya Sabha, sought election to the U.P. Legislative Assembly from 191-Maniram assembly constituency comprised within 38-Gorakhpur Parliamentary constituency of Uttar Pradesh. Under article 164 (4) of the Constitution of India, — "A Minister who for any period of six consecutive months is not a member of the Legislature of the State shall at the expiration of that period cease to be a Minister." Shri T. N. Singh was sworn in as the Chief Minister of the SVD Government in Uttar Pradesh on the 15th October, 1970 and therefore it was natural for him to seek election to the Legislative Assembly within a period of six months from that date. It seems that this bye-election was suggested by the State Chief Electoral Officer for this purpcFc nrd Cio Election Commission also realising the predicament of the Chief Minister readily agreed to the suggestion made by the Chief Electoral Officer of Uttar Pradesh. Having regard to the stature and general popularity of Shri T. N. Singh in Uttar Pradesh, many people thought that he would be able to defeat his rival Shri R. K. Dwivedi, the candidate sponsored by Congress (R), a comparatively unkonwn figure, without much difficulty. But to the surprise of many Shri Dwivedi thrust a crashing defeat on Shri T. N. Singh and won the election in a straight contest by a majority of over 15,000 votes. This was a great moral booster to the Congress (R) but it did not open, as it should have opened, the eyes of the various constituent units of the SVD to the approach and attitude, right or wrong, of the electorate, the ultimate masters of the country. It does not appear that the results of this as well as of the other bye-elections, as also of the general election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly in September, 1970, served as any signal to the opposition parties for finding out the cause responsible for the adverse reaction of the electorate against them, nor did they appear to have seriously considered that after ascertaining the probable cause they should approach the electorate to win their support. The answer is not for the Election Commission to give in this Report. The function of the Commission is simply to draw attention to the strands and trends in the mood and temper of the voter who is the real figure in the election drama. In this connection what was stated in "XXIV Parliamentary Affairs", regarding the Kerala election of 1970, will not be irrelevant. It was observed at pages 8-9,— "The outcome was an unexpected success for the Congress Party which gained a number of seats while both the Communist parties lost, one of them heavily." The ruling party on the other hand took full advantage of the results of these elections during the period of one year before the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. This is done in Great Britain also. Whenever the party in power feels that the political circumstances and conditions are in its favour, it will at once advise the Head of the State to dissolve the legislature. This is the established practice of the party in power in Great Britain which was followed by Shrimati Gandhi in December, 1970, when she advised the President to dissolve the Lok Sabha. In this connection it will be interesting to quote what has been

10


stated by John P. Mackintosh in his Book "The British Cabinet" (Second Edition)— 1968 at pages 208-209,— "It was in 1900 that the 1878 situation was repeated. The Unionists were in office and high in public favour for their conduct of the South African War, with their opponents evidently divided. Parliament had two full years of life ahead but the Cabinet decided to seize this favourable opportunity. As Lord Salisbury told the Queen, the election "would then only be on the settlement of South Africa, whereas if it took place later on there might be all sorts of difficulties and other questions." The Duke of Devonshire put the Cabinet's view in the form of a simple analogy: "We all know very well that the captain of a cricketing eleven, when he wins the toss, puts his own side in, or his adversaries, as he thinks most favourable to his prospects of winning." It became the normal practice that, unless there were exceptional situations (for instance with three fairly evenly balanced parties in the House), a ministry could ask for and be granted a dissolution at any time it chose."

CHAPTER II ELECTORAL ROLLS AND PREPARATION FOR HOLDING THE GENERAL ELECTION 1. "Not only must a person be entitled to vote in this way but before being permitted to vote as an elector in any constituency must first be registered, that is, the person's name must be on the register of parliamentary electors to be used at the election." —A.N. Schofield-Parliamentary Elections, (Third Edition), page 5. 2. "For every constituency there shall be an electoral roll which shall be prepared in accordance with the provisions of this Act under the superintendence, direction and control of the Election Commission". —Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. 3. "No person who is not, and except as expressly provided by this Act, every person who is, for the time being entered in the electoral roll of any constituency shall be entitled to vote in that constituency." —Section 62(1) of the Representation of the People

Act, 1951.

As soon as the Lok Sabha was dissolved, the Election Commission realised that unless preparations for the election were completed quickly on an urgent basis, it would not be possible to hold the elections well in time before the end of the financial year, that is to say, the 31st March, 1971, and unless elections could be held and completed by about the middle of March, it would not be possible for the new Lok Sabha to meet in time and pass at least a vote-on-account for the purpose of meeting the expenditure for the purposes and services of the Union for a few months of the new financial year. A heavy responsibility no doubt devolved upon the Election Commission. If the Election Commission would not and could not move quickly and expeditiously for that purpose, then that might even bring about a constitutional deadlock and crisis in the country because in the absence of the Lok Sabha there would be no other authority to vote the demands for grants at least for the first three-four months of the new financial year. Shortly after the indications became clear that a great split in the Indian National Congress was certain, the Commission felt that such split in the Congress might force the Prime Minister to advise the President to dissolve the House of the People at any opportune moment. The Election Commission did not, therefore, remain idle even before the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. As early as a little more than one year before the dissolution, the 11

12

ELECTORAL ROLLS AND PREPARATION FOR HOLDING THE GENERAL ELECTION

Election Commission hurriedly called a one-day conference of all the Chief Electoral Officers of the various States and Union territories on the 5th November, 1969 and directed them to take up the revision of electoral rolls on the 15th November, 1969 and to finish the entire process of revision by the 15th January, 1970, i.e., just within two months of the commencement of the revision work. This was an unprecedented step in the election history of India because previously the preparation or revision of the electoral rolls took a very much longer period, some times one year or eighteen months but never less than six months even in case of summary revision. The Chief Electoral Officers were exhorted to take up the job in right earnest with all the human resources at their disposal and it definitely went to the credit of the Chief Electoral Officers of the States and Union territories and their election staff that they were able to finish the work by the target date, namely, the 15th January, 1970 in a highly commendable manner, so that the Election Commission was in a position towards the end of January, 1970, even about one year before the general election, to take up the challenge of holding election at a short notice. For this act of the Election Commission, even questions were asked in Parliament as to why the Election Commission, had directed revision of the electoral rolls at such short notice and had also directed that the revision must be completed within two months. The Election Commission had read the writings on the wall and tried to keep itself in a state of perpetual readiness for holding country-wide general election under any contingency. In Great Britain, elections are held within a very short time after the dissolution of Parliament. By the royal proclamation by which the existing Parliament is dissolved, by the very same royal proclamation the new parliament is summoned to meet on a date fixed therein. Within this period between the dissolution of the existing Parliament and the summoning of the new Parliament, the general election in Great Britain must be completed. The total time for holding the general election is only seventeen days from the date of the issue of the royal proclamation dissolving the existing Parliament and summoning the new one. Under rule 1 of the Rules for Conduct of a Parliamentary Election in England and Wales, in the Second Schedule to the (U.K.) Representation of the People Act, 1949 (12 & 13 Geo. 6*,' Ch.68)— (a) the writ for the general election is issued, "as soon as practicable after the issue of the proclamation summoning the new Parliament"; (b) the last date for delivery of nomination papers is the "eighth day after the date of the proclamation summoning the new Parliament"; (c) the poll is to be taken "on the ninth day after the last date for delivery of nomination papers". From the above it will be seen that the general election will be held and completed only within 17 days from the date of the issue of the proclamation dissolving the existing Parliament and summoning the new one. Of course, in calculating this period of 17 days, a Sunday, the day of the


13

Christmas break, or the Easter break, or a bank holiday break or a day appointed for public thanks-giving or mourning is disregarded. Thus the total period for holding and completing a general election in Great Britain is generally 20 or 21 days. For example, in 1970, the Queen dissolved the existing Parliament on the 29th May, 1970 on the advice of the Prime Minister and the poll was held on the 18th June, 1970. A general election in India cannot obviously be held within such a short period of 18 or 20 days. In the first place, India is a vast country with an area several times larger than the area of Great Britain, in the second place, the electorate of India, namely about 300 millions, is more than six times the electorate of Great Britain and thirdly, in Great Britain there is a good practice among the political parties under which the political parties always keep their candidates selected so that the party candidates are in a position to file their nomination papers within eight days after the dissolution of the existing Parliament. In our country, on the contrary, political parties start selecting their candidates only after the dissolution of the Lok Sabha or a Legislative Assembly or only when they see that the normal duration of the Lok Sabha or of a State Legislative Assembly is going to expire soon and a general election, therefore, is imminent. If the political parties in our country can evolve a practice similar to that followed by the political parties in Great Britain, then in India also, it is now possible to hold and complete a general election within a period of forty days and not more than that. The Election Commission and the entire election machinery throughout the country have been attuned to such expeditious work during the last five years. But inspite of the handicap posed by the fact that the political parties require at least a month's time to select their candidates and having also in view the extreme cold climate in the months of January and a major part of February, it was possible to hold and complete the election within about 70 days from the date of the dissolution of the Lok Sabha on the 27th of December, 1970. The first date of the poll was the 1st of March, 1971 and the last date of poll which was only in West Bengal was the 10th of March, 1971. To this matter, we shall refer when we come to the question of the conduct of poll and counting of votes. As the electoral rolls had already been revised and kept ready, the Commission was sanguine that it would be possible to complete the entire election process in any case by the 13th or 14th of March, 1971. The Commission had already asked the Chief Electoral Officers to keep all arrangements and materials for general elections ready because even in the normal circumstances, the general election would come in February-March, 1972. Thus in a circular letter addressed by the Deputy Election Commissioner, Shri P. I. Jacob, on July 16, 1970, to all the Chief Electoral Officers of the States and Union territories, it was stated as follows:— "The Chief Election Commissioner has directed me to instruct you that all the various items of materials required for conducting a General Election to the House of the People and to the State Legislative Assembly should be kept constantly ready so that the Commission would be in a position if it becomes necessary, to hold a general election either to the House of the People or to the State Legislative Assembly, or to both, at short notice,

14


say, within a period of five weeks after the need arises. This could be achieved only if all the items of materials required for a poll are available with you at any point of time from now onwards. Even if the General Election is held only early in 1972, the time at our disposal is quite short and whatever is done now will stand in good stead. The matter, therefore, requires your immediate personal attention and the preparations have to be worked out in a systematic manner according to a specified time schedule." With regard to the electoral rolls, it was stated in that letter that—

:

"The Commission has already asked you by immediate telegram to report whether you have in stock sufficient number of copies of the electoral rolls of all the constituencies for holding a simultaneous General Election to the House of the People and the State Legislative Assembly. This report is due to be sent by you not later than the 18th July, 1970 and should be sent positively within the time limit. The electoral roll may consist of either (i) one integrated roll incorporating the basic roll and all supplements including those prepared in the revision of the electoral rolls in 1970, or (ii) one basic roll plus integrated list of all the supplements upto and including those prepared in the general revision of 1970. You should report immediately the number of copies of each of the two above categories of electoral rolls available with you in the following manner, namely: (a) Constituencies 'with more than 50 copies of the electoral roll; (b) Constituencies with number of copies between 40 and 50; (c) Constituencies with number of copies between 30 and 40; (d) Constituencies with number of copies below 30. If the printing of electoral rolls has not been completed, the work should be expedited to the utmost extent possible and completed before 31-8-70."

Then the Chief Electoral Officer were also requested to keep ready the forms, ballot boxes, lists of polling stations, estimate of the requirement of ballot papers both pink and white which might be necessary, symbol blocks, marking instruments, cloth or canvas bags for wrapping sealed ballot boxes, thin wire for securing the window cover of the ballot box, estimate of requirements as to indelible ink and stamping pads and intimation in good time for these to the firms of Mysore Lac and Paint Works Ltd., Mysore, Kores and Bharat Carbon and Ribbon Manufacturing Co., New Delhi. But for these timely precautionary steps, it would not have been possible to hold the countrywide Fifth General Election to Parliament within a period of about two months after the date of dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Another one-day conference


15

of Chief Electoral Officers was held on the 4th January 1971, i.e., about a week after the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, to review the entire situation regarding arrangements and to have a general and overall view of the whole matter. We have already pointed out that in view of fluid and unstable political situation in the country, the Election Commission had already kept the electoral rolls ready to meet any contingency that might necessitate a general election to the Lok Sabha. These electoral rolls were revised by reference to the 1st of January, 1970. Therefore, when the Lok Sabha was dissolved towards the end of December, 1970, the Election Commission felt confident that it would be possible to hold the general election well in time before the financial year was out. It may be pointed out here that whenever a general election is held, either to the Lok Sabha or to a Legislative Assembly during the first quarter of a year, then the electoral rolls which can be used for such election can only be the rolls prepared or revised by reference to the 1st of January of the preceding year because it is physically impossible to hold and complete any general election by the middle of March of a year by preparing or revising the electoral rolls by reference to the 1st of January of that very year. Therefore, in our election history as the general elections have by and large been held in the first quarter of the year, the rolls which have been used for such general elections have always been the rolls prepared or revised by reference to the 1st of January of the previous year. This time also, the rolls in force at the time of the general election in February-March, 1971 were the rolls which, as already pointed out, were prepared by reference to the 1st of January 1970, but as soon as the. Lok Sabha was dissolved and a general election became imminent, representations started coming in from political parties and others for inclusion of names in the electoral rolls under section 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Under that section any person who is not included in the electoral roll of a constituency may apply to the Electoral Registration Officer for the inclusion of his name in that roll, and the Electoral Registration Officer, if satisfied that the applicant is entitled to be registered in the electoral rolls, is required by the law to direct his name to be included therein. But sub-section (3) of that section sets a time limit for such inclusion. Under that sub-section no direction for the inclusion of a name in the electoral roll of a constituency can be given after the last date for making nominations for an election in that constituency, with the result that even if an application for inclusion is made before the last date for making nominations, if the necessary inquiry as to the eligibility of the applicant and the formalities in connection therewith cannot be completed by the Electoral Registration Officer in time for the purpose of inclusion of the name before the last date for making nominations, then in that case the application for inclusion will remain undisposed of till the elections are held and completed. But every opportunity was given by the Election Commission by issuing directions to all the Electoral Registration Officers throughout the country to entertain as many applications for inclusion as possible and to dispose them of and make orders for inclusion in the electoral rolls in as many cases as possible before the last date for filing nomination papers. Thus on the

•J

16


14th January, 1971, a Press Note was issued by the Election Commission by which wide publicity was given to its directions to the Electoral Registration Officers in this respect. The Press Note was as follows : "ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA Talkatora Road. New Delhi-1. PRESS NOTE Representations have been, and are being received from political parties and others for the extension of the period for filing applications to the electoral registration officer of the concerned constituencies for inclusion of names in the electoral rolls of such constituencies. Section 23(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 provides inter alia that "no direction for the inclusion of a name in the electoral roll of a constituency shall be given after the last date for making nominations for an election." Rule 26(3) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 requires inter alia that a period of seven days must be given for filing objections to any such application for inclusion. Only after the expiry of the aforesaid period of seven days the electoral registration officer, if satisfied that the applicant is entitled to have his name registered in the roll, shall direct the applicant's name to be included in the electoral roll. In view of these mandatory statutory requirements and also in view of a Supreme Court judgement delivered in 1969, the Commission thought it proper that the last date for filing applications for inclusion of names should be the 15th of January, 1971. "The Commission has very carefully considered the whole matter over again in view of the large number of representations which have been received for extension of time. Although there is no legal objection to file any application for inclusion at any time, the Commission apprehends that in view of the forthcoming general elections if may be extremely difficult for the electoral registration officers, all of whom will be busy in connection with important election work and most of whom will function as returning officers or assistant returning officers, to complete the inquiries in connection with all applications for inclusions and direct inclusion of names in the electoral rolls concerned before the last date for filing nominations. "Upon all these considerations, the Commission has decided to direct the electoral registration officers to make every effort to dispose of all applications for inclusion even if such applications are received upto 5 p.m. of the 18th January, 1971. It is made absolutely clear that it may not be possible to dispose of the applications received after that time by the last date for filing


17

nominations. Such applications will of course be kept over for disposal after the forthcoming general elections are over. New Delhi-1. Dated the 14th January, 1971." As the last dates for making nominations were according to the election programme on different days, the applications for inclusion were accepted by the the registration officers for disposal on different dates in different States. In some States, applications for inclusion were accepted by the registration officers even after the end of January, 1971 because the last date for making nominations in those States fell on later dates. Under rule 26 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, the registration officer is required to give at least 7 days time for filing objections to applications for inclusions. Sub-rule (3) of rale 26 specifically lays down that the registration officer shall, immediately, on the receipt of an application for inclusion, direct that one copy thereof be posted in some conspicuous place in his office together with a notice inviting objections to such application within a period of seven days from the date of such posting. It is only after the expiration of that period of seven days, that, the electoral registration officer can consider the objections, if any, received by him and only thereafter he can, if satisfied about the validity of the claim of the applicant, direct his name to be included in the electoral roll. Thus from this it will appear that if the 10th day of a month is the last date for making nominations, then applications for inclusion must reach the electoral registration officer in any case on the 2nd or 3rd day of the month and never beyond that. Applications made after that date will be kept pending for disposal after the elections are over. With all these facilities given to the members of the public and the political parties, a large number of names were included in the electoral rolls throughout the country even after the commencement of the programme of the election. It may be mentioned here that inspite of the best efforts of the Election Commission and the election machinery in the States at various levels, the possibility of wrong omissions or inclusions of some names from or in the electoral rolls cannot altogether be ruled out in view of the vast area and the vast electorate of this country. The total number of electorate is in the neighbourhood of 300 millions which is bigger than the population of any country in the world except the People's Republic of China. Then, the persons who are eligible for registration of their names as voters in the electoral rolls have also got a duty in this respect. Article 326 no doubt gives them a right to be registered as voters but unless they are vigilant m this respect and take care to see that their names have been actually included in the electoral rolls, then, because of human errors or shortcomings their names may not actually find a place therein. Many years ago, Viscount Bryce said that indolence was one of the greatest hindrances to good citizenship. Unless, therefore, our citizens cast off their apathy and indolence, they cannot always be sure that their names have been included in the electoral rolls inspite of the best efforts of those charged with the preparation and revision of the electoral rolls.

18


In the next place, attention of the political parties and members of the public may be drawn to another factor. It has been found from experience that on the eve of every general election to the House of the People or to a State Legislative Assembly, applications for inclusion of names arc made before the concerned electoral registration officers not only in hundreds but quite often in thousands and sometimes tens and hundreds of thousands, with the result that it becomes simply physically impossible for any election officer to cope with the unmanageable task of inclusion of names of such large number of persons in the electoral rolls after making a thorough inquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the respective claims. The political parties and the members of the public therefore should do well if they check the electoral rolls in good time after their final publication. Wide publicity is given whenever any electoral roll is finally published and widest possible publicity is given when any electoral roll is in the process of preparation or revision, that is to say, is in the preliminary or draft stage. If the political parties and the members of the public avail themselves of these opportunities given at several stages, then there cannot be many wrongful omissions or wrongful inclusions of names from or in the electoral rolls. If the proposals of the Election Commission regarding a number of qualifying dates instead of one as at present and regarding the constant revision of the electoral rolls by maintaining them always upto-date, are accepted by Parliament, then many of the complaints regarding wrongful omissions or wrongful inclusions of names will disappear. It is noted with satisfaction that these recommendations of the Election Commission have been accepted practically in toto by the Joint Committee of the Houses of Parliament on amendments to Election Law in their Report. The sooner these amendments are put on the statute book, the better for all concerned. There is no doubt about it because in such a case even a person who completes the age of 21 years even a few days before an election will be able to have his name registered in the electoral roll and it will be possible for the election machinery to cut out from the electoral rolls the names which were wrongly included in the electoral rolls.

CHAPTER III ADULT FRANCHISE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS : A LESSON AND A WARNING 1. "The people are therefore the real directing power; and although the form of government is representative, it is evident that the opinions, the prejudices, the interests, and even the passions of the people are hindered by no permanent obstacles from exercising a perpetual influence on the daily conduct of affairs. In the United States the majority governs in the name of the people, as is the case in all countries in which the people are supreme. This majority is principally composed of peaceable citizens, who, either by inclination or by interest, sincerely wish the welfare of their country. But they are surrounded by the incessant agitation of parties who attempt to gain their co-operation and support." —Alexis De Tocqueville—Democracy In America, Volume I, Chapter IX, page 196 (Popular Prakashan Edition, 1964). 2. "We now come to the Chartists, the politically active portion of the British working class. The six points of the Charter which they contend for contain nothing but the demand of Universal Suffrage, and of the conditions without which Universal Suffrage would be illusory for the working class; such as the ballot, payment of members, annual general elections. But Universal Suffrage is the equivalent of political power for the working class of England, where the proletariat forms the large majority of the population, where, in a long, though underground civil war, it has gained a clear consciousness of its position as a class, and where even the rural districts know no longer any peasants, but only landlords, industrial capitalists (farmers) and hired labourers. The carrying of Universal Suffrage in England would, therefore, be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the Continent. Its inevitable result, here, is the political supremacy of the working class." —Karl Marx in New York Daily Tribune of August 25, 1852, quoted in the book 'Karl Marx : Economy, Class and Social Revolution' edited by Z. A. Jordan, (1971), page 276. 3. "Every day you have kept away at a distance the touch of man and thereby despised the Lord who dwells in the heart." —Tagore. 4. "I am the Rebel : And though tired of fighting, I shall stop Only when the wailings of the oppressed Will not fill the air and rend the sky." —Rebel Poet Kazi Nazrul Islam. •19

20

ADULT FRANCHISE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS : A LESSON AND A WARNING

5. "A new economic order presupposes a change in the substance of legal imperatives; it forces them to attempt response to wider demands: lest they cease to be legal imperatives. The new economic order means universal suffrage; universal suffrage means the conquest by the multitude of the power to operate political institutions. They are bound to use that power so to operate1 them as to make them responsive to needs not so far met by the habits of the State." —Harold Laski, "Introduction to Politics", page 44. By adult franchise, the Indian citizen has found himself and rediscovered himself. He has realized fully that he has become the repository of a mighty force which can make or unmake governments and which therefore no politician or political party can afford to ignore. He knows that politicians and political parties always try to placate him and to wean him to their views by even means and methods which may not always appear proper and fair. No politician, however, conservative he may be in his basic approach and attitude towards political objects and ideals and policies or in regard to the norms and values of life and conduct of man as a member of society and political community or however self-conceited he may be, can dare to bypass the citizen today because he is a voter who knows well that at least at the time of election he will be in a position to wield his power in favour of the parties and persons who have due regard for his personality and dignity. This reawakening of the individual seems to be the direct result of adult suffrage in election in this country. The word 'reawakening' has been purposely used because since time immemorial where history of man runneth not, the culture and philosophy of this country have regarded every man or woman or for the matter of that every created being, as the manifestation of the Supreme Absolute. But under the dead weight of reasonless and soulless habits, customs and traditions, man forgot himself. Adult franchise has enabled him to recognise his real self and re-assert himself as a vocal member of the body politic. Anybody who has got an opportunity to mix with the people by coming down on the same level as theirs will readily recognise the truth of what has been stated above. Therefore, when a handful of unthinking and frustrated politicians try to explain away the result of any election by putting forward all sorts of fantastic, absurd and mischievous theories, they not only insult the Indian citizen, the voter, but also the true philosophy and culture of this Great Land, however, they may profess to be the followers of such philosophy and culture. We have not yet realised the full implications, political, social and economic, of adult franchise. Adult franchise is a mighty force, which is sweeping away, whether some of us like it or not, all blocks and barriers of blind traditions and customs as well as casteism, communalism, religious fanaticism, untouchability each of which sometimes even masquerades in the garb of religion. Those who are supporters of these baneful customs and traditions forget that in a democracy based on adult suffrage these black things have no place or function. Politically every adult citizen today is a voter with only one vote and no more than one, whether he is


21

a Brahmin, or a non-Brahmin, or a Hindu or a Muslim or a Sikh or a Christian, etc. or from whatever part or region of the country he may come. Adult franchise is thus socially and politically the great leveller. As at the end of life death is the great leveller, so" in life adult franchise is the great leveller. Before it all are absolutely equal. There cannot be any difference between a voter and a voter on the ground of any religious, social, economic or political barrier. In the queue before the polling station all citizens go by the common name, namely, voters. Those who have eyes to see can easily see that adult franchise has reinstated the free spirit of man in its rightful place in this country. But very few people have realized the much more important implications of adult franchise, namely, its economic implications. Its economic implications were first seen by Karl Marx more than a century ago. About 40 years ago, Ernest Barker said in his book "The Citizens' Choice" (Chapter II—The Breakdown of Democracy) — "It (that is, democracy) is a principle of the action of the human spirit—the principle that free spirits, in the area of social and political as well as of individual life, should freely guide themselves to freely determined issues. It is also a system of institutions, operative in a political community, which enables this principle to be realized and serves as the means of its realization." Adult franchise is, par excellence, the best institution of democracy which tends to bring about not only social and political equality and liberty of the citizen by removing shackles and barriers of caste, creed, community and religion, but also his economic sufficiency and freedom. Speaking generally, it may be said without much fear of contradiction that from ancient times till about the eighties of the last century private charity was the only institution for ameliorating the conditions of the poor. Since then however some high souled geniuses and true friends of mankind who were shocked by the injustice of the prevalent social and economic systems functioning and flourishing under the protection of outmoded and centuries old legal institutions, were able to invent two powerful social and economic orders to cut at the very root of poverty. These are (1) socialism and (2) adult franchise. Here in this report on elections my principal concern is however with adult franchise. The days are gone in which man might remain content with the ideal of civil and religious liberty or of political liberty and free voting right. Adult franchise has opened to the people a new vision of their economic freedom which is still to be won and which will free every citizen from the effects of brutalizing poverty and its concomitants, such as hunger, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. Adult franchise has created in the voter the conviction that poverty is an economic phenomenon which 3EC/72—3

22


can be banished and removed from our midst by the organised efforts of the community. Gone are the days of laissez faire according to which — (a) poverty is an inevitable condition of human life; (b) man's mundane condition is, by and large, the reflection of his own moral character; and (c) private voluntary charity is the proper source of relief for the legitimate needs of the 'poor'. Perhaps having regard to these tenets of laissez faire, Sri Aurobindo once said—"There are philanthropists wh>o would be troubled if the poor were not always with us for they would then have no field for their charity". But it is adult franchise which has ushered in new standards of the positive or welfare state and socialism. According to the standards of this new State, poverty is an 'economic' phenomenon that can, must and should be abolished; the State is the sole social institution capable of dealing with the economic affairs which give rise to that phenomenon; and hence the chief responsibility for abolishing poverty rests upon the State and the Stat6 must, in turn, exert its faculties towards that end. These principles which today appear to us to be evident did not so appear to the classical and traditional political economists, like Adam Smith, Ricardo, Malthus or even John Stuart Mill. These classical and traditional political economists following the traditions of the Reformation preached that the virtues of temperance, sexual restraint, diligence and thrift should be practised by the poor. The new economists headed by Alfred Marshall while giving very high value to these individual moral virtues, began to realise that these virtues however noble, high and edifying they might be, were not adequate to improve the lot of the poor masses, specially in the conditions brought about by the Industrial Revolution and modern Industrialism by abolishing poverty and its problems. Thus in his inaugural lecture entitled 'the Present Position of Economics' after his election to the Professorship at Cambridge in 1885, Alfred Marshall said— "The chief fault, then, in English economists at the beginning of the century was not that they ignored history and statistics; but that Ricardo and his followers neglected a large group of facts, and a method of studying facts which we now see to be of primary importance." "They regarded man as, so to speak, a constant quantity, and gave themselves little trouble to study his variations. The people whom they knew were chiefly city men; and they took it for granted tacitly that other Englishmen were very much like those they knew in the city. They were aware that the inhabitants of other countries had pecularities of their own; but they regarded such differences, when they thought of them at all, as superficial and sure to be removed as soon as other nations had got to know that better way which Englishmen were ready to teach them. The same bent of mind, that led our lawyers


23

to impose English civil law on the Hindoos, led our economists to work out their theories on the tacit supposition that the world was made up of city men." "This did little harm so long as they treated of money and foreign trade, but great harm when they treated of the relations between the different industrial classes. It led them to regard labour simply as a commodity without throwing themselves into the point of view of the workman; without allowing for his human passions, his instincts and habits, his sympathies and antipathies, his class jealousies and class adhesiveness, his want of knowledge and of the opportunities for free and vigorous action. They therefore attributed to the forces of supply and demand a much more mechanical and regular action than they actually have; and laid down laws with regard to profits and wages that did not really hold even for England in their own time." "But their most vital fault was that they did not see how liable to change are the habits and institutions of industry. In particular they did not see that the poverty of the poor is the chief cause of that weakness and inefficiency which are the cause of their poverty : they had not the faith, that modern economists have, in the possibility of a vast improvement in the condition of the working classes .• It is therefore not a matter for wonder that the economists, flushed with their victories over a set of much more solid thinkers, did not trouble themselves to examine any of the doctrines of the socialists, and least of all their speculations as to human nature." "But the socialists were men who felt intensely, and who knew something about the hidden springs of human action of which the economists took no account. Buried among their wild rhapsodies there were shrewd observations and pregnant suggestions from which philosophers and economists had much to learn. And gradually their influence began to tell. Comte's debts to them were very great; and the crisis of John Stuart Mill's life, as he tells us in his autobiography, came to him from reading them." (Italics mine). —See Memorials of Alfred Marshall edited by A.C. Pigou—1956 Edition, pages 154—56. And five years later, that is in 1890, in the first edition of his famous book "Principles of Economics", Alfred Marshall said about the poor at page 2— "But the conditions which surround extreme poverty, especially in densely crowded places tend to deaden the higher faculties. Those "who have been called the Residuum of our large towns have little opportunity for friendship; they know nothing of

24


the decencies and the quiet, and very little even of the unity of family life; and religion often fails to reach them. No doubt their physical, mental, and moral ill-health is partly due to other causes than poverty : but this is the chief cause." "And, in addition to the Residuum, there are vast numbers of people both in town and country who are brought up with insufficient food, clothing, and house-room; whose education is broken . off early in order that they may go to work for wages; who thenceforth are engaged during long hours in exhausting toil with imperfectly nourished bodies, and have therefore no chance of developing their higher mental faculties. Their life is not necessarily unhealthy or unhappy. Rejoicing in their affections towards God and man, and perhaps even possessing some natural refinement of feeling, they may lead lives that are far less incomplete than those of many, who have more material wealth. But, for all that, their poverty is a great and almost unmixed evil to them. Even when they are well, their weariness often amounts to pain, while their pleasures are few; and when sickness comes, the suffering caused by poverty increases tenfold. And, though a contented spirit may go far towards reconciling them to these evils, there are others to which it ought not to reconcile them. Overworked and undertaught, weary and careworn, without quite and without leisure, they have no chance of making the best of their mental faculties." "Although then some of the evils which commonly go with poverty are not its necessary consequences; yet, broadly speaking, "the destruction of the poor is their poverty," and the study of the causes of poverty is a study of the causes of the degradation of a large part of mankind." (Italics mine) And these words have been repeated in every subsequent edition of that book. Thus we see that the effect of the scientific outlook of the new economists beginning with Alfred Marshall was to reduce to a good deal of irrelevance the four cardinal virtues that were so important to classical and traditional political economy, namely, virtues of temperance, sexual restraint, diligence and thrift. These virtues were no doubt highly laudable but they were inadequate to meet the baneful conditions thrown up by the Industrial Revolution and modern Industrialism. They realised, and it is now realised almost universally, that poverty was an economic and not a moral problem. It is exactly for this reason that the framers of our Constitution laid down certain very important principles of policy to be followed by the State in article 39 of the Constitution of India which reads as follows : "39. The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing— (a) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood;


25

(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good'; (c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment; (d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women ; (e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength; (f) that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment," But in spite of the realisation that poverty is an economic phenomenon to be tackled on an economic and political basis, the powers of the State even in Great Britain were not able to abolish poverty and to cope with its baneful effects. Only after the introduction of full adult franchise in Great Britain in 1918 and 1928, the efforts of the State gradually began to show results and today not only in Great Britain but almost in every country of Europe where adult suffrage is in vogue poverty has practically been abolished. With the abolition of poverty the real function of the four cardinal virtues mentioned earlier seems to have arrived. In this country also adult franchise has started producing results. The people have realised that the powers of the State will have to be so exercised as to bring to an end their miserable conditions engendered by poverty. Therefore, they have started giving opportunities to the political parties according to their promises and programme. If they find that the party whom they voted to power has not been and is not able to ameliorate their conditions, then perhaps at a future election they may not hesitate to turn their back to that political party and try some other political party. This is a lesson which every right thinking politician and every sound and well organised political party having any respect for dignity of man should try to take from adult franchise and if the political parties fail to bring to the people, the poverty stricken electorate of this country, an end of their poverty, then the fear is that these ultimate holders of power will not hesitate to assert themselves not through the ballot box but through the bullet and the bayonet. Adult franchise should therefore be a lesson and a warning : it should be a hope as well as a challenge. This is why, Prof. Laski said— "A new economic order presupposes a change in the substance of legal imperatives; it forces them to attempt response to wider demands lest they cease to be legal imperatives. The new economic order means universal suffrage; universal suffrage means the conquest by the multitude of the power to operate political institutions. They are bound to use that power so to operate them as to make them responsive to the needs not so

26


far met by the habits of the State. Their authority makes things seem a natural part of justice which, even a generation ago, would have been deemed impracticable by statesmen. They impose upon society conditions favourable to their own preponderance in exactly the same way as their predecessors. Law, morality, religion, move in terms of the new rhythm of life just as they have done when other classes attain to power. They elevate the conceptions of which they have need into the same objects of veneration that other conceptions have had in previous social systems. For a class which dominates a State does not merely ask for power to exploit those whom it dispossesses; it demands, as in Soviet Russia to-day, that its exploitation should be equated with right, that its very victims should recognise the justice of the principles upon which they lose their privileges. So, in the past, society regarded an attack on property as the highest sin; and it was prepared to regard as honourable the man who left his wife and children hungry rather than injure the possessions of his neighbour." —Harold J. Laski—An Introduction to Politics—pages 44-45. The General Elections to the Lok Sabha in 1971 and to the various Legislative Assemblies in 1972, have clearly shown that the people of this country have awoken, after about a quarter of a century since Independence, from their deep slumber and they have started to assert their valued rights for the object of ameliorating of their economic conditions. They have realised that they go to the polling station not simply to put a mark on some piece of paper but that they are doing so in the hope and belief that those for whom they are putting the mark, will do something to alleviate the pains and pangs of their poverty. And they will not hesitate at the next opportunity to give their mark for other persons and parties if those for whom they have given their mark earlier have not even to some minimum extent endeavoured to fulfil their promises. If adult suffrage fails, violence is sure to come and no one will be able to stop it. This is the warning of adult franchise which everybody should take heed of. And if and when that dire and terrible event comes, no fantastic and mischievous theory of rigging elections will be of any avail to any body.

CHAPTER IV WRITS AND PROGRAMMES FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION 1. "Had I succeeded I should have used my utmost endeavours to have acted upto the great Trust reposed in me. I should have considered a seat in Parliament—neither as a Title of Honour, nor an instrument of profit, but as a laborious and important duty, to which the greatest parts joined to the severest application are scarcely equal. I should have endeavoured to follow the path of moderation and impartiality, Loyal to my King without servility, Zealous for my Country without Faction; and attached to the general welfare of Great Britain, but not unattentive to the particular interests of the Borough, I had the Honour to represent." —From Edward Gibbon's First Election Speech on the Day of Election for the Borough of Peters field in the year 1761. 2. "

, being elected to the great high council and supreme public court of parliament,—a trust, the most important, both in its nature and consequences, that can be conferred by subjects upon a fellow citizen in a free country." — Whitelock on the King's Writ for choosing members of Parliament, 1766, 459.

On the dissolution of the Lok Sabha on the 27th December, 1970, the holding of a general election for constituting a new Lok Sabha became an absolute legal imperative. The Constitution of India in article 79 says— "There shall be a Parliament for the Union which shall consist of the President and two Houses to be known respectively as the Council of States and the House of the People." This means that at every point of time there must be a Parliament in existence; and a Parliament can be in existence if and only if all the three constituent units thereof, namely, the President, the Council of States and the House of the People continue to exist. When, therefore, the House of the People is dissolved, the House continues to exist through the Speaker of the House of the People. This is no doubt a fiction, but still for maintaining the unbroken continuity of Parliament, the framers of our Constitution following the British practice provided that in spite of the dissolution of the House, the Speaker shall not vacate his office until immediately before the first meeting of the House of the People after dissolution. This is laid down in the second proviso to article 94 of the Constitution which runs as follows :— "Provided further that, whenever the House of the People is dissolved, the Speaker shall not vacate his office until immediately 27

28

WRITS AND PROGRAMMES FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION

before the first meeting of the House of the People after dissolution." This fiction is also present in British constitutional practice. But for continuity of Parliament, there is another fiction in Great Britain. It is this, namely, that the Royal proclamation by which the existing Parliament is dissolved, by the very same Royal proclamation, the new Parliament is summoned to meet at a particular place and on a particular date menioned in that proclamation. As stated in May's 'Parliamentary Practice'— "This period (the period between the dissolution of the existing Parliament and the first meeting of the new Parliament), of course, contains an interregnum between the dissolution of a Parliament and the meeting of its successor during which there is no Parliament in existence; but the principle of the unbroken continuity of Parliament is for all practical purposes secured by the fact that the same proclamation which dissolves a Parliament provides for the election and meeting of a new Parliament." .: — Eighteenth Edition, page 254. The case of a State Legislative Assembly is almost the same. But there is a little difference. In the case of a State Legislative Assembly there may be a contingency in which it may not be in continuous existence whether in reality or as a matter of fiction for a time during which a State is under President's Rule under article 356 of the Constitution. But in the case of Parliament there is no provision in the Constitution corresponding to article 356. As the Election Commission was ready for holding the election to constitute a new Parliament, the Election Commission could have recommended to the President under section 14(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to issue writ notification or notifications calling the general election even in the first week or the first ten days of January, 1971. But two considerations prevented the Commission from taking this step. First of all, the Commission felt that the various political parties would not be able to select their candidates within a short period of 12 or 14 days after the dissolution of Parliament. Secondly, the weather conditions in the whole month of January and practically the whole month of February would make it extremely difficult for all concerned to take part in the elections during these two months practically in all the States and Union territories north of Vindhya Hills. Therefore, the Commission decided to make its recommendation to the President for the issue of the writs under section 14 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 only in the last week of January and the first week of February, 1971. After careful consideration of the whole matter the Commission decided that it should recommend to the President of India three different dates for the issue of the writ notifications calling upon all the Parliamentary constituencies throughout the country to elect members for the


29

purpose of constituting a new House of the People. These three different dates were the 27th January, 1971, the 1st February, 1971 and the 3rd February, 1971. The writ notification under section 14(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, was issued on the 27th January, 1971, in respect of the following States and Union territories, namely, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Assam Bihar Gujarat Himachal Pradesh Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Nagaland Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh Andaman & Nicobar Islands Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands Manipur

The writ notification was issued on the 1st February, 1971, in respect of the following States and Union territories, namely; 1. Andhra Pradesh 2. Haryana 3. Jammu & Kashmir 4. Mysore 5. Orissa 6. Punjab 7. Chandigarh 8. Dadra & Nagar Haveli 9. Delhi 10. Goa, Daman and Diu 11. Pondicherry The writ notification in respect of the State of West Bengal and the Union territory of Tripura was issued on the 3rd February, 1971. Before that, on the 17th January, 1971, the Chief Election Commissioner himself personally handed over a letter with a copy of the Proceedings to the President recommending the issue of the writ notifications on

30


the aforesaid dates. That letter and the Proceedings were as follows :— "S. P. Sen-Varma

D.O. No. 464/71 Chief Election Commissioner of India New Delhi-1. January 17, 1971.

Respected Rashtrapati Ji, I have the honour to bring personally to you the Proceedings in relation to the notifications to be issued under your orders whereby you may be pleased to call upon all the parliamentary constituencies in the country to elect members in accordance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the rules and orders made thereunder. The Proceedings and the draft notification for publication in the Official Gazette will be formally sent to the Government of India in the Ministry of Law in the course of today. With personal respects and affection. Yours sincerely, Sd/- S. P. Sen-Varma Shri V. V. Giri, President of India, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA New Delhi, Dated the 17th January, 1971. PROCEEDINGS Whereas the House of the People was dissolved by the President under sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of article 85 of the Constitution on the 27th December, 1970; And whereas a general election has to be held for the purpose of constituting a new House; Now, therefore, in pursuance of sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), the Election Commission of India hereby recommends each of the dates specified in column 2 of the Table below as the date on which may be published in the Gazette of India a notification by which the President may be pleased to call upon, as required by sub-section (2) of the said section 14, all the parliamentary constituencies comprised within the States and Union territories specified in column 1 of that Table against the date in column 2 thereof, to elect


31

members in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, and the rules and orders made thereunder :— TABLE

N a m e of State/Union territory

D a t e of p u b l i cation i n t h e Gazette of I n d i a of n o t i fication u / s 14 (2) of t h e R e presentation o f the People Act 1951

1

1. Assam 2. Bihar 3. Gujarat 4. Himachal Pradesh . . . . 5. Kerala 6. M a d h y a Pradesh . . . . 7. Maharashtra . . . . . 8. Nagaland 9. Rajasthan 10. Tamil N a d u 11. U t t a r Pradesh . 12. A n d a m a n & N i c o b a r Islands 13. Laccadive, Minicoy a n d Amindivi Islands 14. Manipur . . . . . . 15. A n d h r a Pradesh . . . . 16. Haryana 17. J a m m u a n d K a s h m i r . . . . 18. Mysore . . . . . . 19. Orissa 20. Punjab 21. Chandigarh 22. D a d r a a n d Nagar Haveli 23. Delhi 24. G o a , D a m a n a n d D i u . . . . 25. Pondicherry 26. West Bengal 27. Tripura

27-1-71 27-1-71 27-1-71 27-1-71 27-1-71 27-1-71 27-1-71 27-1-71 27-1-71 27-1-71 27-1-71 27-1-71 27-1-71 27-1-71 1-2-71 1-2-71 1-2-71 1-2-71 1-2-71 1-2-71 1-2-71 1-2-71

1-2-71 1-2-71 1-2-71 3-2-71 3-2-71 By order. A. N. SEN, Secretary.

32


On the very same day the Proceedings with three draft writ notifications were sent by the Secretary of the Commission to the Government of India in the Ministry of Law, Legislative Department, for necessary action. The programme notifications under section 30 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, were issued by the Election Commission simultaneously, that is to say, the programme notifications in respect of the States and Union territories for which the writ notifications had been issued by the President on the 27th January, 1971, were issued by the Commission on that date; the programme notifications in respect of the States and Union territories for which the writ notifications had been issued on the 1st February, 1971, were issued on that date; and the programme notifications in respect of West Bengal and Tripura for which the writ notifications were issued on the 3rd February, 1971, were issued on that very date. The following Table shows at a glance the various dates for the several stages of the election process :—

Statement showing programme for General Election to Lok

Name of State/ Union territory

Date of Issue Last date of notification for making nominations

Date for scrutiny of nominations

—

Last date for withdrawal of Candidatures

Sabha—1971

Date or Dates Date of Hours of poll of poll completion

"

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

'

> §

8 A.M. to 5 P.M.

g jd

8 •

1. Assam .

.

.

.

27-1-71 (Wednesday)

3-2-71 (Wednesday)

4-2-71 (Thursday)

6-2-71 (Saturday)

1-3-71 (Monday)

t

15-3-71

4-3-71 (Thursday) 2. Bihar

3. Gujarat

.

.

4. Himachal Pradesh

.

.

27-1-71

3-2-71

4-2-71

8-2-71

1-3-71

(Monday)

(Monday) 3-3-71 (Wednesday) 5-3-71 (Friday) 1-3-71 (Monday) 4-3-71 (Thursday)

.

27-1-71

3-2-71

4-2-71

6-2-71 (Saturday)

.

27-1-71

3-2-71

4-2-71

6-2-71

^ gj 5a

| g 15-3-71 7 . 3 0 A.M. to 4.30 P.M.

™

o » j 3, W 15-3-71

8 A.M. to 5 P.M.

8 2 S >;

2-3-71 *15-6-71 (Tuesday) 5-3-71 (Friday) *16-5-71 (Sunday)

8 A.M. to 5 P.M.

W £ g |j Oz

*Vide Commission's notification No. 464/HP/HP/71(2) dated 16th February, 1971, date of poll in 1-Kinnaur, 49-Lahaul-Spiti assembly constituencies and areas of Pangi tahsil and Bharmour sub-tahsil of Chamba district comprised within 2-Mandi parliamentary constituency was changed from 2nd March, 1971 to 16th May, 1971.

&

—

K 1

5. Kerala

3

4

5

.

.

27-1-71

3-2-71

4-2-71

6-2-71

6. Madhya Pradesh

.

.

27-1-71

3-2-71

4-2-71

6-2-71

7. Maharashtra

.

.

27-1-71

3-2-71

4-2-71

6-2-71

.

.

27-1-71

3-2-71

4-2-71

6-2-71

8. Nagaland

9. Rajasthan

.

2

.

.

.

.

27-1-71

3-2-71

4-2-71

**Vide notification S.O. No. 927 dated 23rd February, 1971.

6-2-71

6 6-3-71 (Saturday) **9-3-71 (Tuesday) 1-3-71 (Monday) 4-3-71 (Thursday) 1-3-71 (Monday) 4-3-71 (Thursday) 6-3-71 (Saturday) 1-3-71 (Monday) 2-3-71 (Tuesday) 3-3-71 (Wednesday) 4-3-71 (Thursday) 5-3-71 (Friday) 6-3-71 (Saturday) 1-3-71 (Monday) 4-3-71 (Thursday) 6-3-71 (Saturday)

7

8

15-3-71

7 A.M. to 5 P.M.

15-3-71

8 A.M. to 5 P.M.

15-3-71

8 A.M. to 5 P.M.

15-3-71

7 A.M. to 3 P.M.

<S £ H M

fe O ^ g o W 6 g w W

2 g S w a

M g ja > 15-3-71

8 A.M. to 5 P.M.

" w Q 5 2!

1 10. Tamil Nadu

>

Z ° i-d

3-3-71

g

(Wednesday) 5-3-71 (Friday) 1-3-71 (Monday) 1-3-71 (Monday) 1-3-71 (Monday)

o » S 5 a >n g ^

15-3-71

7 A.M. to 4 P.M.

15-3-71

7 A.M. to 4 P.M.

15-3-71

7.30A.M.to4.30P.M.

4-3-71

H

(Thursday)

«

(Sunday) 5-3-71 (Friday) 5-3-71 (Friday) 4-3-71 (Thursday) 6-3-71 (Saturday) 7-3-71 (Sunday) *6-6-71 (Sunday)

15-3-71

8 A.M. to . 5 PM.

15-3-71

8 A.M. to 5 P.M.

*15-6-71

9 A.M. to 5 P.M.

*Viii C^nniisioii's notiScation No. 464/J&K-HP/71(2), dated 12th February, 1971, the date of poll in 4-Ladakh parliamentary constitimsy was chaagsd from 7th March, 1971 to 6th June, 1971.

g § w £ r W

£ g H 3 2

OJ **

- —

,

1

2

3

4

5

,

,

—

, 6

7

_____ 8

18. Mysore

.

.

.

1-2-71

8-2-71

9-2-71

11-2-71

4-3-71 (Thursday) 7-3-71 (Sunday)

15-3-71

8 A.M. t o 5 P.M.

1 9 . Orissa"^

.

.

.

1-2-71

8-2-71

9-2-71

11-2-71

5-3-71 (Friday)

15-3-71

8 A.M. to 5 P.M.

20. Punjab

.

.

.

1-2-71

8-2-71

9-2-71

11-2-71

5-3-71 (Friday)

15-3-71

8 A.M. to 4 P.M.

.

.

1-2-71

8-2-71

9-2-71

11-2-71

5-3-71 (Friday)

15-3-71

8 A.M. to 5 P.M.

22. Dadra and Nagar Haveli

1-2-71

8-2-71

9-2-71

11-2-71

5-3-71 (Friday)

15-3-71

8 A.M. to 5 P.M.

23. Delhi

1-2-71

8-2-71

9-2-71

11-2-71

5-3-71 (Friday)

15-3-71

8 A.M. to 5 P.M.

21. Chandigarh

.

.

.

24. Goa, Daman and Diu 25. Pondicherry

8-2-71

9-2-71

11-2-71

4-3-71 (Thursday)

15-3-71

8A.M. to 5 P.M.

9-2-71

11-2-71

4-3-71 (Thursday)

15-3-71

8 A.M. to 5 P.M.

10-3-71 (Wednesday)

20-3-71

7.30 A.M. to 4.30 P.M.

7-3-71 (Sunday)

15-3-71

7.30 A.M. to 4.30 P.M.

.

1-2-71

8-2-71

,

.

3-2-71 (Wednesday)

10-2-71 (Wednesday)

11-2-71 (Thursday)

3-2-71

10-2-71

11-2-71

y

.

> § § w

g g «

O * X M M £ c M 5 n H

26. West Bengal * 27. Tripura

< J3 3 OT

o M

1-2-71

.

w

.

.

13-2-71 (Saturday) 13-2-71

3 53


37

From the above Table it will be seen that the poll was taken on a single day, namely, on the 1st March, 1971, in the Island Union territory of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands; on the 4th March, 1971, in the Union territories of Goa, Daman and Diu and Pondicherry; on the 5th March, 1971, in Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Orissa, Punjab, Chandigarh, Delhi and Dadra and Nagar Haveli; on the 7th March, 1971, in Tripura and on the 10th March, 1971, in West Bengal. In the Union territory of Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands, there was no necessity of taking poll on 1st March, 1971. as the election was uncontcstcd. The poll was taken on two days, namely, the 1st March, 1971 and the 4th March, 1971, in the States of Assam, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh; on the 2nd March, 1971 and the 5th March, 1971, in Himachal Pradesh; on the 6th March, 1971 and the 9th March, 1971, in Kerala; on the 4th March, 1971, and the 7th March, 1971, in Mysore; and in the rest of the States and Union territories on three days, that is to say, on the 1st March, 1971, 3rd March, 1971, and the 5th March, 1971, in Bihar; on the 1st March, 1971, 4th March, 1971 and the 6th March, 1971, in Maharashtra and Rajasthan; on the 1st March, 1971, 4th March, 1971 and the 7th March, 1971, in Tamil Nadu and Manipur; on the 1st March, 1971, 3rd March, 1971 and the 5th March, 1971, in Uttar Pradesh; on the 4th March,. 1971, 6th March, 1971 and the 7th March, 1971, in Jammu and Kashmir. In Nagaland the election had to be spread over the whole week commencing on the 1st March, 1971 (Monday) and ending on the 6th March, 1971 (Saturday). In the case of Kerala, the 3rd March, 1971, and the 6th March, 1971, were originally fixed as the dates of the poll but because of the strike of the non-gazetted employees of the State Government including Government School Teachers and Aided School Teachers the dates of poll had to be changed on the 6th March, 1971 and the 9th March, 1971 by amending notification No. S.O. 927 dated 23rd February, 1971, issued by the Election Commission. The strike was called off on the 22nd February, 1971. A number of days after the elections were over throughout the country, some politicians started smelling rat in regard to the date of poll fixed in the case of West Bengal, namely, the 10th March, 1971, ignoring the abnormal situation caused by violence and murders in West Bengal by those elements who did not believe in elections and efficacy of the ballot boxes such as the Naxalites and others. In the morning newspapers in New Delhi as well as in Calcutta in those days the headlines almost invariably gave in bold letters the number of murders and other cases of violence committed in West Bengal, the whole State was in the grip of consternation and extreme panic. To allay the fear of the general public even the Army had to be called out in aid of civil power not only in Calcutta but also in other affected places in West Bengal. It was therefore considered absolutely necessary to bring as many contingents of Armed-police forces including Central Reserve Police and the Border Security Force from other States where elections could be held earlier. Armed-police forces were rushed to West Bengal not only from Assam, Bihar, Orissa and Uttar Pradesh but also even from Punjab. In spite of that it was not possible to put a stop to murders during the period immediately preceding the eleeion. The panic and consternationwere so great that it became a problem as to how to get 3 EC/72—4

38


sufficient number of presiding and polling officers for taking the poll in 27,237 polling stations in West Bengal. Even writ petitions were filed before Calcutta High Court by some persons who were appointed as presiding and polling officers on the ground that they could not be forced to do election duty unless they had accepted their appointments as presiding or polling officers. Mention may be made in this connection of the case of K. P. Roy Versus D. Rudra—AIR 1971 Calcutta 461. It was under these abnormal circumstances that the Election Commission had to fix the single day of poll in West Bengal on the 10th March, 1971, thereby making it possible to draft the police forces from other States. Everybody and all politicians understood the reasonableness and propriety of the step at that time, on the day of poll, at the time of counting and declaration of results but after a number of days some of the politicians found some mischievious motive in the fixation of the 10th of March, 1971, as the polling day. Their allegation was that this was intentionally done to make the operation of chemicalised ballot papers a success. We shall revert to this matter at the appropriate place in this Report. With the issue of the President's writ notifications and the Election Commission's programme notifications, the election process started and it started in full swing. For the purpose of reviewing the arrangements for the election a Conference of Chief Electoral Officers of the States and Union territories was, as mentioned already, called at short notice on the 4th January, 1971. In that Conference which was presided over by the Chief Election Commissioner of India all the details with respect to the latest position as to the electoral rolls, appointment of returning officers and assistant returning officers, the setting up of polling stations, the election programmes, the hours of poll, the polling personnel, namely, the appointment of presiding and polling officers, forms, stationery and other election materials, symbol blocks, indelible ink, marking instruments, the paper for printing of ballot papers, counting of votes, etc. etc. were discussed with the Chief Electoral Officers who participated in the Conference and they were asked to go back to their respective States and Union territories and devote themselves with their subordinates and staff to the work of the countrywide general election for constituting the Fifth Lok Sabha. Along with the general elections for constituting a new House of the People, general elections for constituting new Legislative Assemblies in | the States of Orissa, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal also were held. As the conduct of the decennial census operations and the conduct of the general election simultaneously were sure to give rise to practical difficulties as represented by a number of Chief Electoral Officers, it was decided after discussion in which a representative of the Registrar General also participated, that the reference date for the purpose of the census operations should be the 31st of March, 1971, instead of the 1st March, 1971, as originally proposed by the Registrar General. The Chief Election Commissioner assured the Conference that the matter would be taken up with the Ministry of Home Affairs and the State Governments to ensure that the schools were not closed before census work was over, so that the school teachers might be drafted for census work. As a matter of fact, the census operations were postponed for some time during the election period and the reference date was also changed from the 1st March to the 31st March, 1971.

CHAPTER V FROM NOMINATION TO WITHDRAWAL OF CANDIDATURES "

the standard of conduct in political elections in this country (the United Kingdom) is now so high that public opinion would not readily countenance any deliberate attempt to elect a person known to be legally disabled.

"But if there is little danger of the nomination of those who are legally disabled, there is nothing to prevent the nomination of those who are in various ways, personally unsuitable. Ignorance, stupidity, meanness, self-seeking—none of these is any bar." —J.F.S. Ross, Elections and Electors (1954) page 206. The first step in the election process after the issue of the writ notification and the programme notification is the nomination of candidates for elections. But the work of selection of candidates by the political parties starts earlier as soon as the general election is in the offing. A candidate who is not sponsored and set up by any political party, that is to say, an independent candidate, is a self-selected person and he can offer himself as a candidate if he can secure the support of only one elector of the constituency to become his proposer and if he has, or can procure, the sum of money required to be deposited or filed along with the nomination paper. An independent candidate is an anachronism in a representative democracy, specially in a parliamentary democracy where the Executive Government is collectively responsible to the Lower House of Parliament, which in practical terms means, responsible in effect to the party commanding majority in the Lower House. As has been stated by a recent writer:— "Under representative institutions, the isolated individual, however, favourably situated in other respects is virtually helpless. For all save a few outstanding personalities, political isolation or aloofness means political impotence; and in many cases the great 'independents' themselves would be more effective if they abandon their 'independence'." —R. Bassett, The Essentials of Parliamentary Democracy (1964), pages 29-30. The selection of candidates by political parties is undoubtedly a tough business. It is not enough to select as candidates persons who possess all the constitutional and legal qualifications and also do not suffer from any constitutional and legal disqualifications, it is very necessary that political 39

40

FROM NOMINATION TO WITHDRAWAL OF CANDIDATURES

parties, specially the well organised and well established parties, such as the National Parties and the State Parties should take special care in selecting and setting up as candidates only those persons who if elected, could be able to discharge their most responsible and onerous jobs as members of Parliament. If the right type of person is not selected then the danger is that the quality of representative institutions may not be commensurate with what the electorate, that is, the people expect of the members of such representative institutions. They need not be experts or specialists as the members of the executive and judicial branches of the Government. But because the legislative branch has the ultimate control of all public policies, the members of the legislative branch should be men of vision, strong practical commonsense, having keen awareness of the real needs of the people whose representatives they are, men whose range of perception and sympathy is not confined to their particular walk of life. In other words, they should be men of high qualities of mind, heart, and character. They should be men possessing intelligence, breadth of vision, warm human sympathies, receptiveness to new ideas without any inhibition, balanced judgment, capacity for hard work, mastery of detail and above all sterling character. To pick and choose persons who come up to this standard, as candidates for elections, is a really difficult task. But if well-established political parties are to do their political role in a manner which will subserve the interests of the people at large, their leaders must have to be men of such high character and calibre possessing the knack of selecting the right type of persons—men and women—for the high offices of members of Parliament. It is because the right type of persons are not selected at the initial stage that sometimes we hear complaints from the public that many members of Parliament do not come up to the standards which the people expect of them. I think besides relying upon the judgment, foresight and goodsense of the political parties in the matter of selecting proper persons as candidates, the law also should step in to ensure as far as possible that proper and suitable persons stand as candidates at elections to the House of the People and the Legislative Assemblies. If the law is amended as herein below recommended, then the political parties also would exercise more care in selection of candidates. Not only that, the number of independent candidates would also come down considerably. The law as contained in section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, at present requires only one elector of the constituency to propose the name of a person as a candidate and sign the nomination paper as such. Before the amendment to the law in 1956, the law required that a second elector of the constituency should second the proposal and sign the nomination paper as seconder. But this requirement of a seconder was done away with by Representation of the People (Second Amendment) Act, 1956 (27 of 1956). This was definitely a retrograde step. This amendment simply overlooked and ignored the principles underlying the statutory requirement regarding proposers and seconders in

NOMINATION TO WITHDRAWAL OF CANDIDATURES

41

a nomination paper of a candidate. The first principle is that the person concerned should be able to show even at the time of filing his nomination paper that he is not totally unacceptable to at least a frw electors of the constituency, that he has some popularity and some backing in the constituency. This requirement of proposers and seconders who must be electors of "the constituency may make it difficult for a person who is a total stranger in the constituency to stand as a candidate at the election although under the law any elector of any parliamentary constituency in any part of India may stand as a candidate at an election to Lok Sabha from any other parliamentary constituency situated in any State or Union territory; and any elector of any assembly, constituency in a State may stand as a candidate at an election to the Legislative Assembly of that State from any other assembly constituency situated within that State. These legal provisions are quite necessary because India is one and indivisible and so also the Parliament of India, but unless a candidate enjoys popularity throughout the country he may find it difficult to stand as a candidate for election to the Lok Sabha from any constituency in the country. And a measure of his popularity in a constituency outside his own State is by and large his ability to procure the services of a few electors in that constituency to be the proposers and seconders of his nomination. These observations will apply mutatis mutandis to a candidate who, if he is popular throughout the State, may stand successfully from any assembly constituency in the State. The second principle underlying the requirement of a number of electors of the constituency is that in the case of an uncontested election, the returned candidate is actually elected by at least a number of electors of the constituency. For these reasons, in Great Britain, in Canada, in Australia and practically in every other country where parliamentary democracy prevails, the law provides that the nomination of a candidate must have the support of a number of electors of the constituency. Thus in Great Britain at least ten electors must support the candidate while he files his nomination paper. Thus rule 8(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Rules in the Second Schedule to the U.K. Representation of the People Act, 1949, provides— "The nomination paper shall be subscribed by two electors as proposer and seconder, and by eight other electors as assenting to the nomination." In Canada, a candidate must be nominated as a candidate for election to the Canadian House of Commons by at least twentyfive electors. Thus section 21(5) of the Canada Elections Act, 1960 (Chapter XXXIX) provides— "Any twentyfive or more electors qualified to vote in an electoral district for which an election is to be held may nominate a candidate to be elected for such electoral district by signing a nomination paper "

42

FROM NOMINATION TO WITHDRAWAL OF CANDIDATURES

A candidate for election to the Australian Senate or House of Representatives must be nominated by not less than six electors of the constituency. Thus section 71 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, 1918—1962 provides inter alia—• "A nomination shall be signed by not less than six persons entitled to vote at the election for which the candidate is nominated." There is no valid and good reason why in India also a person who wants to stand as a candidate at an election either to the House of the People or to a Legislative Assembly should not be nominated by a number of electors of the constituency. Having regard to the large electorate in a parliamentary as well as in an assembly constituency, it is strongly recommended that a candidate for an election to the Lok Sabha should be nominated by at least twentyfive electors as proposer, seconder and supporters and a candidate for an election to a Legislative Assembly should be nominated by at least ten electors of the constituency. A provision like this will have at least two effects. It is bound to enhance suitability of a person as a candidate for election to the House of the People or a Legislative Assembly. It will also have the effect of reducing the number of candidates by eliminating to a large extent not only independents but also others who are not fit to become the representatives of the people. This will also do away with the necessity of increasing the amount of deposit under section 34 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Table below will show at a glance the total number of candidates who filed nomination papers from the various States and Union territories, the number of candidates whose nomination papers were rejected, the number of candidates who withdrew their candidatures after scrutiny of nomination papers and the number of contesting candidates left in the field: TABLE

State/Union Territory

Total nominated

1 Andhra Pradesh . . . Assam Bihar . . . . . . Gujarat Haryana . . . . . Hi machal Pradesh . . . Jammu & Kashmir . . . Kerala . . ,. . Madhya Pradesh . . . . Maharashtra . . . . Mysore . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nomination rejected

2

3

328 88 606 230 109 32 52 104 328 45S 251

6 .. 9 1 4 .. 3 .. 13 9 1

Withdrawn 4

Contesting 5

115 207 10 78 176 421 111 118 42 63 12 20 17 32 3 7 - 6 7 145 170 212 235 146 104

FROM

NOMINATION

T O WITHDRAWAL O F CANDIDATURES 2

1 Nagaland . . . . . Orissa . . . . Punjab . . . . . . Rajasthan . . . . . Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh . . . . . West Bengal A n d a m a n & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh . . . . Dadra & Nagar Haveli Delhi Goa, D a m a n & Dili . Laccadive, Minicoy & Amindivi Islands Manipur . . . . . Pondicherry . . . . . Tripura . . . . . .

. . . .

. . .

G r a n d Total :

2 94 143 231 212 111 209 10 22 6 103 24 1 13 8 12

43

3

4

5

3 2 9 4 12

6 58 93 91 222 14 5 10 3 38 11 2 4 3

85 83 129 111 543 195 5 11 3 64 13 1 11 4 9

1589

2784

2

1 1

4451

78

From the above Table, it will be seen that while the total number of persons who filed nomination papers was 4451, as many as 1589 withdrew their candidatures under section 37 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and 2784 remained in the field as contesting candidates. It may be mentioned here that the total number of constituencies which were called upon by the President to elect members to the Lok Sabha at the time of the general election in March, 1971 was 518. There was only one uncontested return under section 53 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. That was from the parliamentary constituency comprising the Union territory of the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands. The elections in the remaining constituencies were all contested elections. The following Table gives a partywise break up of (a) contesting candidates, (b) candidates who were elected, and (c) candidates whose deposits were forfeited because none of them was elected and the number of valid votes polled by each such defeated candidate did not exceed one-sixth of the total number of valid votes polled by all the candidates in terms of section 158(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: TABLE

Partywise contestants, elected and no. of those who forftiled deposits Name of Party 1. Indian National Congress presided over by Shri Jagjivan Ram 2. Indian National Congress presided over by Shri Nijalingappa.

Contested Elected

Forfeited deposits

441

352

5

238

16

114

44

FROM NOMINATION TO WITHDRAWAL OF CANDIDATURES Name of Party

3. Swatantra Party 4. Bharatiya Jana Sangh 5. Samyukta Socialist Party 6. Praja Socialist Party 7. Communist Party of India . 8. Communist Party of India (M) . 9. Others (State and unrecognised parties, 10. Independents .

Contested

59 157 93 63 87 85 427 1134 2784

Elected

Forfeited deposits 18

23 25 52 15 518

46 64 53 32 30 279 1064 1705

It will be seen from the above Table that the number of defeated candidates who forfeited their deposits was extremely large, namely, 1705. Out of a total number of 1134 independent candidates who contested the elections as many as 1064 lost their deposits. This clearly shows that the voters do not want independent candidates at all. The number of candidates set up by the political parties who forfeited their deposits is also fairly large. This clearly supports the view which has already been expressed, namely, that unless political parties take special care and caution in selecting candidates who possess at least in some measure the qualities which the people expect of Members of Parliament, the electorate will not hesitate to punish them in the shape of forfeiture of their deposits. The political parties should take a lesson from this in the matter of selecting candidates in a general election.

CHAPTER VI THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD 1. "For a long while before the appointed time has come, the election becomes the important and, so to speak, the all-engrossing topic of discussion. Factional ardor is redoubled, and all the artificial passions which the imagination can create in a happy and peaceful land are agitated and brought to light. The President, moreover, is absorbed by the cares of self-defense. He no longer governs for the interest of the state, but for that of his reelection; he does homage to the majority, and instead of checking its passions, as his duty commands, he frequently courts its worst caprices. As the election draws near, the activity of intrigue and the agitation of the populace increase; the citizens are divided into hostile camps, each of which assumes the name of its favourite candidate; the whole nation glows with feverish excitement; the election is the daily theme of the press, the subject of private conversation, the end of every thought and every action, the sole interest of the present. It is true as soon as the choice is determined, this ardor is dispelled, calm returns, and the river, which had nearly broken its banks, sinks to its usual level; but who can refrain from astonishment that such storm should have arisen?" —Alexis De Tocqueville-Democracy in America Edition, 1964)—Volume I, pages 153-154.

(First

Indian

2. "The actual voting is clearly less important, as Tocqueville showed, than the discussion which precedes the vote; for this discussion defines policy, illuminates the situation and the forces available for dealing with it and should make all citizens more willing to live in peace with those who disagree with them The vote then in a democracy is an expression of an opinion, right or wrong, wise or foolish, following upon free discussion. Public discussion between those of opposing opinions is assumed to have given the vote its quality of intelligent consent." —Delisle Burns, Democracy, pages 120-21. 3. "Poking cheap fun at the expense of those who serve the public (whatever may be the shade of their political opinions) is not the way to promote active citizenship—it was the favourite game of the Fascists and the Nazis on their way to power Reckless promises which they later find they are unable to fulfil (because they have not previously worked diligently 45

46

THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD

enough to find out the true position of the economy) not only harm them personally as political figures, but—as they must come to realise—also discredit the democratic ideal." —John Hudlestone of the School of Social Science, University of Bradford (in 1967-68) 21—Parliamentary Affairs, pages 224225. 4. "Mankind being, for the most part, incapable of politics, accepts vituperation as an easy and congenial substitute." —George Bernard Shaw. The period commencing immediately after the withdrawal of candidatures in accordance with the provisions of section 37 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and ending with the polling day, may roughly be called the campaign period although under the law (section 126 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951) public meetings are prohibited in any polling areas during the period of forty-eight hours ending with the conclusion of the poll. This period is the crucial period for the contesting candidates and the political parties. Under section 38 of the abovementioned Act, immediately after the expiry of the period within which candidatures may be withdrawn under section 37, the returning officer of the constituency is required to prepare and publish the list of contesting candidates, that is to say, the candidates who have not withdrawn their candidatures within the period fixed under section 37 and who therefore remain in the field to fight the election. Each contesting candidate is therefore in a position to know who are his actual rivals in the election arena. He can accordingly arrange his tactics and direct his campaign for the purpose of fighting the election. The political parties also by whom candidates have been set up prepare themselves for the fight and start their campaign in full swing by holding meetings, demonstrations and processions etc. and by distributing handbills, posters, pamphlets etc. in support of their candidates and criticising the public acts and conduct of the candidates of the other parties as also by criticising the policies, programmes and ideologies of other political parties. In short, this period is the most hectic period for the contesting candidates and the political parties. Under the law, as it stands at present, the minimum campaign period, that is, the period between the last date for the withdrawal of candidatures and the day of poll is 20 days but in actual practice, this period is a little more, extending in some cases upto about even 25 or 26 days. This cannot be avoided in a vast country like India at the time of a countrywide general election to the Lok Sabha throughout the length and breadth of the country. Where however, a general election is held only to one or two legislative assemblies, the campaign period generally does not exceed 22 or 23 days. Originally, however, the minimum period fixed by law was longer than at present. At the time of the First General Election, the minimum statutory campaign period was 30 days under section 30 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This period was reduced to 20 days by the amendment of the law in 1956 so that the minimum statutory campaign period since the Second General Election of 1957 has been 20 days. The Joint Committee of the Houses of Parliament on the amendments to the Election Law, however, has recommended

THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD

47

that this minimum period of 20 days should be reduced to 17 days. The principal reason which weighed with the Joint Committee in making this suggestion is that the reduction of the minimum period from 20 days to 17 days will result in reducing the election expenses borne by the candidates and the political parties. There is no doubt some force in this reasoning but some practical difficulties may arise in the printing of the ballot papers and distribution of the same by the district election officers/ returning officers to the various polling parties. It takes 2/3 days for the Chief Electoral Officer of the State concerned to receive all the lists of contesting candidates from the returning officers of all the parliamentary constituencies or as the case may be, of the assembly constituencies. After carefully checking the various lists, the Chief Electoral Officer is in a position to give the print order to the State Government Press and send the lists of contesting candidates to the press for printing the ballot papers constituency wise. The printing of the ballot papers with counterfoils takes in all its stages about ten days. After the printing and all its subsequent stages like checking, scrutiny, sorting, arranging and stitching into bundles, of the ballot papers are over, the ballot papers are sent under strong police guard in vehicles which are more often than not police vehicles, to the returning officers who keep them in the Treasury or Subtreasury. Therefrom the ballot papers are distributed to the various polling parties and there are places in some States, like Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh etc. where there are polling stations to reach which the polling parties take 4-5 days. In the case of some polling stations in Assam it takes more than even seven days. From this aspect, the minimum period of 17 days might cause some practical difficulties. Still the Commission is of the view that it is always better to reduce the minimum of the period under the law, and the Commission will always impress upon the State Chief Electoral Officers and the district election officers and returning officers that the printing of the ballot papers in the State Government presses must have to be finished in any case within a shorter time than at present. Experiments with this shorter period might first be started in some bye-elections so that the election machinery would get used to it and thereafter it can be utilised on wider scale in general elections. The campaign period is also most important for the entire election machinery. All the steps in connection with the conduct of the poll are to be taken and completed during the campaign period. Reference has been made above to the printing of ballot papers. Apart from that, the lists of polling stations are to be finalised with the prior approval of the Election Commission during this period. Under section 25 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, it is the statutory duty of the district election officer to provide with the previous approval of the Election Commission sufficient number of polling stations for every constituency. Formerly, complaints used to be received from the candidates and the political parties that they got little opportunity in suggesting changes, modifications or improvements in the lists of polling stations. The Commission felt that there were good grounds for such complaints. Accordingly, the Commission issued instructions and directions to the district election officers that they should first prepare the draft lists of polling stations within their respective jurisdictions, then publish the draft in suitable places and invite suggestions for changes or

48

THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD

improvements in the draft, they should also hold discussions with the representatives of the various political parties and candidates and after having made suitable changes in the draft lists and not before that they should send the draft lists to the Election Commission for its approval. This procedure is now invariably followed in finalising the lists of polling stations. The result has been that the number of complaints from the candidates and the political parties has substantially come down. Under the law (section 25), publication of the lists of polling stations as approved by the Commission is a statutory obligation on the part of the district election officer. It has been held in a number of cases decided by the High Courts that if the list of polling stations is not published as required by section 25, then that is noncompliance with section 25 and a ground for an election petition under section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, vide Taziuddin Amin Vs. Dhani Ram Talukdar AIR 1959 Assam 128. There is another case of the same High Court decided in October, 1967, namely, Baharul Islam Vs. Kamini Mohan. Therefore, the district election officers should take every care to see that the lists of polling stations as approved by the Election Commission are invariably published in terms of section 25 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It has been noticed in some cases that polling stations are changed at the last moment by the district election officers without the previous approval of the Election Commission. This practice is a bad practice and should be discontinued because this may give rise to election petitions although such petitions will not likely to be allowed unless it can be proved that the result of the election has been materially affected by such change of polling station.

Polling stations should be made as numerous as possible so that a voter is not to walk a long distance from his house to reach the polling station where he is to go to cast his vote. If the distance between the voter's residence and his polling station is a long one, then that gives encouragement to the political parties and the candidates to offer vehicles to the voters for conveying them free to the polling stations and to avoid the trouble of walking a long distance the voters are also tempted to use such vehicles. Use of such free conveyance is a corrupt practice under section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. it is also an electoral offence under section 133 of that Act. Therefore, every attempt should be made to reduce the distance between the voter's residence and his polling station by increasing as far as possible the number of polling stations. At the Fourth General Election of 1967, the maximum distance between a voter's residence and his polling station was three miles. In 1968, this was reduced to two miles and thereafter it has been now reduced to two kilometres, i.e., one and a quarter of a mile. This was the distance at the time of the Mid-term General Elections in 1969, at the time of the Fifth General Election to the Lok Sabha in 1971 and at the time of the Fifth General Elections to the State Legislative Assemblies in 1972. The total number of polling stations at the time of the Fifth General Election to the Lck Sabha in 1971 was 3,42,944. At the time of the Fourth General Election in 1967, the number was much less. It was only 2,67,555 and at the time of the Third General Election in 1962, it was still less, namely, 2,38,568. The following Table shows Statewise

49

THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD

the number of polling stations set up in the various States and Union territories at the time of the various general elections. The figures in respect of the general elections to the various State Legislative Assemblies in 1972 are also given later in this Report. TABLE

Number of Polling Stations set up during the last General Elections 1962

State/Union territory

2

1 1. A n d h r a P r a d e s h 2. A s s a m

.

.

.

5. H a r y a n a

.

.

.

.

.

3

4

5

.

.

21,587

23,816

.

.

5,814

6,481

24,215

29,213

10,960

11,554

.

.

6. H i m a c h a l P r a d e s h

1971

.

3. B i h a r 4. G u j a r a t

1968-69

.

.

.

1967

.

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

4,741 1,152

7. J a m m u & K a s h m i r

27.928 7,808 31,504

36,487 14,737 5,570

4,900

2,825

2,255 2,525

3,094 10,353

7,946

8,366

.

17,303

19,191

25,728

.

.

20,921

22,947

33,124

.

.

12,598

14,011

.

324

363

13. O r i s s a

8,328

8,960

14. P u n j a b

11,447

8. K e r a l a 9. M a d h y a P r a d e s h

.

10. M a h a r a s h t r a 11. Mysore

. .

.

.

. .

.

.

.

.

.

12. N a g a i a n d (1964)

15. R a j a s t h a n

.

.

.

.

21,433

575

330

12,847

6.866

8,176

.

.

.

11.588

12,913

16,412

.

.

.

26,973

21,041

23,862

17. U t t a r P r a d e s h

39,121

42,369

47,125

56,300

18. West Bengal

21,465

22,650

24,191

27,237

16. T a m i l N a d u

.

.

123 81 34

142 137 42

1,385

1,918

2,166

539 213 621

470 26 709 324 787

2,38,568

2,67,555

1. A n d a m a n & N i c o b a r Islands 2. C h a n d i g a r h

.

.

.

.

3. D a d r a & N a g a r H a v e l i 4. D e l h i 5. G o a , D a m a n & D i u

.

.

.

.

6. Laccadive, M i n i c o y & A m i n d i v i I s l a n d s 7. M a n i p u r

.

.

.

8. P o n d i c h e r r y (1964) 9. T r i p u r a

.

. .

.

.

. .

.

. .

.

.

.

581 ,

332

26

836 347 1,060

1,08,382

3,42,944

50

THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD

With the increase in the number of polling stations, the result has been that the number of cases in which the voters have availed themselves of free conveyance in vehicles provided by the parties and candidates to take them to the polling stations has come down substantially not only in urban areas but also in rural areas. This has been the general experience throughout the country, because although the maximum distance has been for the last three years only one and a quarter of a mile (two kilometres), the actual distance in a vast majority of cases between voters' residences and the respective polling stations is not even one mile. In a good number of cases it is half a mile or even less. Naturally, therefore, the voters do not like to avail themselves of any free conveyance even when offered by the candidates and political parties because they do not find any difficulty in walking the small distance of two furlongs or half a mile to reach their polling stations. To reduce and ultimately to eliminate the corrupt practice of free conveyance of voters in mechanically propelled vehicles offered by the candidates and political parties, the Commission suggested a number of remedies. Some of them were no doubt drastic. The Commission felt that to root out a deep-seated malady sometimes a drastic remedy was absolutely necessary. A good number of these recommendations has been adopted by the Joint Committee of Parliament although the more drastic ones have not been adopted by the Joint Committee. The Commission would like very much that those recommendations also should be adopted by Parliament. Another important task during the campaign period is the finalisation of the polling personnel. As a matter of fact, the number of polling stations can be increased even to a larger number but for the difficulty faced by the election machinery in procuring the services of the huge army of polling personnel required at the time of a countrywide general election. Even when a countrywide general election to the Lok Sabha is held separately from the assembly elections, even then the total number of polling personnel required to man a polling station is four. This is the minimum number. In the last general election of 1971, as has already been mentioned, the number of polling stations set up throughout the country was 3,42,944. At the rate of four polling personnel for each polling station (one presiding officer and three polling officers), the total number of presiding and polling officers required was about fourteen lakhs. The district election officers sand the returning officers faced extreme difficulties in getting such huge number of polling personnel. Sometimes cooperation of the Government departments, specially of the Central Government departments located at the various State headquarters and in other places in the State is not obtained. Sometimes the employees themselves raise objection and express unwillingness to serve as presiding and polling officers. The matter went to such a length in West Bengal that even a writ petition was filed before the Calcutta High Court. It was alleged that a presiding officer or a polling officer might or might not accept the letter of appointment by which he had been appointed as such and if he did not accept, then it could not be said that he had been appointed unilaterally as such by the district election officer under section 26 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This was the case of K. P. Roy Vs. Rudra AIR 1971 Cal. 461. The High Court held that acceptance of the offer of appointment was not necessary in the case of appointment of presiding officers or polling officers for the purpose of elections to our National Parliament or to the State Assemblies.

THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD

51

Under article 23(2) of the Constitution, the State may impose compulsory service for public purposes. As service for purposes of elections for constituting the National Parliament or the State Legislatures is par excellence a compulsory service for a public purpose, the question of acceptance of the offer of appointment as presiding officer or polling officer does hardly arise. Be that as it may, the Election Commission and the election machinery always experience difficulties at the time of the general elections in finding suitable persons for appointment as presiding officers and polling officers. It is one of the principal reasons why the Commission is not in a position to increase the number of polling stations further. Then the question of number of police personnel is also there. If the number of polling stations is increased still further, then the number of police personnel required to guard every polling station to maintain law and order will necessarily increase and this in its turn may require the splitting and staggering of the poll in a particular State over a number of days with the result that inspite of the best efforts of the Commission, it is not possible to hold the election on a single day in a good number of States. The whole process thus appears to be a vicious circle. Inspite of that, the number of polling stations has been substantially increased reducing the maximum distance to one and a quarter of a mile and even then the number of days over which the poll has been staggered has been fewer than before. It has already been shown that in a good number of States and Union territories the election was held on a single day. Then, during the campaign period, so many other details relating to the election are to be attended to that this period places the greatest strain upon the entire election staff throughout the country. The following polling materials had to be made available to the various polling stations numbering about 3,43,000: — (c) List

of polling

materials

for a polling

1. Indelible i n k 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. v4.

Copying pencil . . Ordinary pencil . . Self inking p a d (purple) Ink tablet .

.

. . .

.

.

. .

.

. .

. .

.

Ink-pot . . . . . . . . Pen-holder a n d nib . . . . . Blotting paper Foolscap paper . . . . . . . Pins Metal seal for presiding officer . . A r r o w cross marks rubber s t a m p for m a r k i n g Sutli (Thread) Sealing wax

party

1 Phial of 7.5 c . c . or 5 c.c. p e r polling station. . . 2 . . . 2 . . 2 2 red 2 blue . . 2 . . 2 each . . 1 sheet of D . F . size . . 4 sheets 1 pkt. . . . 1 ballot papers 6 2 bundles 12 pieces

52

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

T H E CAMPAIGN

Receipt for deposit for challeged votes . . . . Material for voting c o m p a r t m e n t . . . . G u m paste . . . . . . . . . Pusher Match Box Blade A n n bands for polling officers . . . . . Lanterns, if necessary Metal rule for detaching ballot papers from counter-foils C l o t h or rag for removing ink from t h u m b impression of elector . . . . . . .

List of polling materials fjr a polling 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

PERIOD

, 1 book . 2 1 bottle . 1 1 1 . 6 — 1

station

Paper seal . . . . . . . . . . Stitched bundles of ballot papers with counterfoils C a r d b o a r d for strengthening paper seal . . . Passes for Polling Agents . . . . . . . Rubber s t a m p bearing distinguishing m a r k of polling station Packing paper W o r k i n g copy of the roll . . . . . . . Addressed tags . . . . . . . . . Labels for ballot boxes Cover for unused ballot papers . . . . . . Cover for counterfoils of used ballot papers . . Cover for tendered ballot papers a n d list of tendered votes Candle o r debri . . . . . . . . .

6 .

6 6 . 1 2 sheets 3 6 6 2 . 3 . 2 6 candles o r 1 debri Ballot box 3 Flexible wire . . . . . . . . 1 yd. C u p or empty cigarette tins for setting the indelible ink bottle . 1 Notice specifying polling area . . . . . . 2 copies List of contesting candidates ( F o r m 7-A) . . . . 2 copies Covers for returned a n d cancelled ballot papers . . . 2 List of challenged votes ( F o r m 14) . . . . . 2 Cover for unused paper seals . . . . . . 2 A p p o i n t m e n t letters ( F o r m 10) 2 Presiding Officer's diary . . . . . . . 2 fool scap sheets Cover for Ballot Paper A c c o u n t . . . . . . 2 Cover for Paper Seal A c c o u n t . . . . . . 2 Cover for marked copies of electoral rolls . . . . 2 Cover for other copy of electoral roll . . . . . 2 Cover for list of challenged votes ( F o r m 14) . . . . 2 Cover for letters of a p p o i n t m e n t of polling agents ( F o r m 10) . 2 Cover for Presiding Officer's diary . . . . 1

THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD

,31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.

Covet for receipt book and cash forefeitcd, if any . . 1 Cover for Declarations of companions . .. . . . 1 Cover for Election Duty Certificates (Form 12-B) . v ". 1 Form of Ballot Paper Account (Form 16) . . . . 2 Form for Paper Seal Account . . . . . . 2 Form for companions of blind or infirm voters ... ... ... 1.0 Forms for list of blind infirm voters (Form 14-A) . . . 2 Canvas bag or a new cloth for wrapping ballot box or boxes . Sufficient quantity of ribbon or tape for securing the ballot box by passing it on in all sides. . . . . ..." Cover for ballot papers cancelled; voting procedure violated . 2 Cover for signed but unused ballot papers . . . 2 Cover for Presiding Officer's brief record under rule 40. . . 1' Cover for any other paper that the Returning Officer has directed to be kept in a sealed packet. . . . . . . 1

From the above lists of polling materials for a polling party and a polling station, it will be observed that no figure has been mentioned against the item—"ballot paper". The reason for this is obvious. The number of ballot papers which will be necessary for a polling station can be exactly ascertained after the list of polling stations in a constituency has been finalised in terms of section 25 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the total number of electors assigned to that polling station is known. Only thereafter, the total number of ballot papers to be supplied for each polling station can be known and the number so ascertained then is handed over by the returning officer to the polling party headed by the presiding officer when the party leaves for its polling station one or two days, in the hilly, forest and desert areas of Assam, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan etc. it may be even 5/6 days or even a week—before the date of the poll. The total number of ballot papers to be supplied to each polling station is, according to the instructions of the Election Commission contained in the Handbook for Returning Officers, equal to the number of electors assigned to that polling station rounded off to the next ten. Thus, suppose if the total number of electors allotted to a polling station is 872, then it should be rounded off to 880 and this number of ballot papers should be handed over to the polling party for that polling station. [See paragraph 5 of Chapter VII of the Handbook for Returning Officers, 1970, which was in force at the time of the Fifth General Election to the Lok Sabha in 1971. The present instruction in this regard is also contained in paragraph 5 of Chapter VII of the Handbook for Returning Officers, 1972]. The polling parties carrying the ballot papers and other polling materials to their respective polling stations are invariably escorted by the police guards. The total number of ballot papers required for a constituency is determined as follows :" The total numbers of ballot papers for all the polling stations in an assembly constituency are first addedTSgether. Thereafter, the grand total obtained by such addition is rounded off to the next higher hundred and that becomes the total number of ballot papers required for an assembly constituency. Suppose the addition of the total number of ballot papers 3BC/72—5

54

THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD

gives a grand total of 69,910, then this number should be rounded off to 70,000 and that will be the total number of ballot papers for that assembly constituency. This is also provided in the same paragraph 5 of Chapter VII of the Handbook for Returning Officers. The following Table shows State and Union territorywise the total number of electors and the total number of ballot papers printed in connection with the Fifth General Election to the Lok Sabha in 197k: Statement showing the particulars of ballot papers printed in various Government Presses for the General Elections, 1972 Total Electorate

Name of the State/ Union territory

No. of Name of the Press(es) where ballot papers printed for Lok Sabha

2,26,68,583

2,29,84,000 1. Govt. Central Press, Hy• derabad. 2. Govt. Sectt. Press, Hyderabad. 3. Govt. Telugu Press, Hyderabad.

62,67,677

64,53,300 1. Assam Govt. Press, Shillong. 2. Assam Govt. Branch Press, Gauhati.

3. Bihar .

3,09,11,092

3,17,76,000 1. Sectt. Press, Patna. 2. Press & Forms, Bihar Gaya.

4. Gujarat

1,15,34,565

1,22,00,000 1. 2. 3. 4.

1. Andhra Pradesh .

2. Assam

Govt. Govt. Govt. Govt.

Press, Rajkot. Press, Bhavnagar. Press, Gandhinagar. Press, Baroda.

Govt. Press, Union territory, Chandigarh.

5. Haryana

47,68,035

49,50,347

6. Jammu & Kashmir

21,05,859

21,30,000 1. Govt. Press, Srinagar. 2. Govt. Press, Jammu.

7. Kerala

.

l,02,2?,291 1,04,82,900

8. Madhya Pradesh .

.

1,95,59,898 2,06,90,400 1. Central Press, Bhopal. 2. Regional Press, Indore. 3. Regional Press, Rajnandgaon. 4. Regional Press, Gwalior. 5. Regional Press, Rewa.

9. Tamil Nadu

2,30,45,812

Govt.

Press,

Trivandrum.

2,35,00,000 Govt. Press, Madras.

55

*HE CAMPAIGN PERIOD

10. Maharashtra

2,39,94,771 2,55,47,042

11. Mysore

1,37,89,683

12. Nagaland

Balloting system of voting. No ballot papers were printed .

13. Orissa . 14. Punjab 15. Rajasthan

.

.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Govt. Central Press, Bombay. Govt. Press, Nagpur. Yervada Prison Press, Poona. Govt. Press, Kolhapur. Govt. Press, Aurangabad.

1,39,75,000 Govt. Press, Bangalore.

1,08,60,036

1,09,60,200

Orissa Govt. Press, Cuttack.

69,47,699

70,44,912

Govt. Press, Union territory, Chandigarh.

1,32,44,556

1,33,95,500 1. Govt. Central Press, Jaipur. 2. Govt. Press, Alwar. 3. Govt. Press, Bikaner. 4. Govt. Press, Udaipur. 5. Govt. Press, Jodhpur.

16. Uttar Pradesh

4,56,96,235

4,69,88,513 1. Govt. Press, Allahabad. 2. Govt. Press, Aish Bagh. Lucknow. 3. Govt. Photo Litho Press Roorkee.

17. West Bengal

2,17,14,745

2,33,86,100 1. West Bengal Govt. Press, Alipore, Calcutta-27. 2. West Bengal Govt. Press, Cooch Behar.

17,08,667

*16,49,400 Himachal Pradesh Govt. Printing Press, Simla.

18. Himachal Pradesh 19. Andaman & Nicobar

Balloting system of voting. No ballot papers were printed.

Islands 20. Chandigarh . 21. Dadra and Nagar Haveli 22. Delhi 23. Goa, Daman & Diu 24. Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands 25. Manipur

1,16,512

1,19,172

33,012

34,000

Govt. Press,

Chandigarh.

Govt. Printing & Stationery Baroda (Gujarat State).

20,16,396

22,19,000 Govt. of India Press, Minto Road, New Delhi.

4,35,168

4,40,900 Govt. Printing Press, Panaji.

Uncontested. 5,43,407

5,70,000 Govt. Press, Manipur, Imphal.

56

THE CAMPAIGN: 1

26. Pondicherry

.

. .

27. Tripura

2,46,789

2,60,100 Govt. Printing Press, Pondi-

•

cherry.

7,03,401

.

. ..

.

.

.

7,20,000 1. Govt. of India Press, Calcutta. 2. Govt. of Tripura Press, Agartala.

28. Meghalaya .

.

. Areas comprised in Meghalava are included in the relevant Parliamentary constituencies in* Assam. 27,31,34,889 28,24,76,786

*The number of ballot papers printed is less than the total electorate because balloting • system of voting was followed in certain snowbound areas where election took place on the 16th May, 1971 for which 75,000 ballot papers under the balloting system had been supplied.

Along with the Fifth General Election to the Lok Sabha, General Elections were also held for constituting the Legislative Assemblies of Orissa, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. The total number of electors in these three States as shown in the above statement was— 1. Orissa . ,' 2. Tamil Nadu •• 3. West Bengal

'. .". I".. . :

,

.

.

^

..

..

.

,

.1,08,60,036 2,30,45,812 2,17,14,745 5,56,20,593

The total number of ballot papers for the assembly elections in these States was the same as shown in the above Statement, namely, 1. Orissa 2. Tamil Nadu 3. West Bengal

. .

,

,

1,09,60,200 2,35,CO,CCO . 2,33,86,100 5,78,46,300

Thus the total electorate for the Lok Sabha election was 27,31,34,889 and the total electorate for the assembly elections in these three States was 5,56,20,593. The grand total was 32,87,55,482.- Similarly, the total number of ballot papers printed for the Lok Sabha elections was 28,24,76,786 and the total number of ballot papers for election to the Legislative Assemblies of these three States was 5,78,46,300 and the grand total was about 34,03,23,086. The paper required for printing the ballot papers were manufactured by five paper mills in the country and supplied direct by the mills themselves to the various Government Presses through the Chief Electoral

THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD;

57

Officers of the States and Union territories concerned. These five paper mills were— (1), M/s Orient Paper Mills Ltd., United Commercial Bank Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi-1; (2) M/s Mysore Paper Mills Ltd., Bhadrawati, Mysore; (3) M/s Ballarpur Paper & Straw Board Mills Ltd., 124, Janpath, Thapar House, New Delhi-1; .-••.,' (4) M/s Titagarh Taper Mills Co. Ltd., Chartered Bank Building, Calcutta-1; and (5) M/s Bengal Paper Mills Co. Ltd., 14-Netaji Subhas Road, The paper was of a special substance, namely, 11.1 Kg. per ream and special colour, viz., cream wove/white wove and was manufactured only for election purposes/ The paper was supplied, as already pointed out, to the Director of Printing of the Presses (by whatever other name known in any State or Union territory) through the Chief Electoral Officer concerned. The actual printing of the ballot papers was done under the supervision and control of the Chief Electoral Officer of the State or the Union territory concerned (exercised generally through respective returning officers of the constituencies or their representatives), and the Superintendents of the Government Presses under maximum security conditions both during the process of printing and distribution of ballot papers from the presses to the Returning Officers or their representatives. The paper was manufactured in the above-mentioned five mills on allocation made by the Director General of Supplies and Disposals to the Government of India to whom the respective Chief Electoral Officers sent their estimate of the paper required for the printing of ballot papers. This does not of course include the pink paper required for printing the ballot papers for the assembly elections in Orissa, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. It is not necessary to deal at greater length with ballot papers here as it is proposed to deal with the matter in detail in a subsequent chapter. A few words are called for here about broadcasting facilities from the All India Radio at its National Hookup as well as from the various , regional stations. Broadcasting plays a very important role in educating the electorate about the various issues involved in the election and about the objects, policies, programmes and promises of the various political parties and candidates, In a vast country like India with an electorate larger than the population of any country in the world except the People's Republic of China,, the problem to reach the electorate is indeed a very serious one. Such a vast electorate can only be reached through the various media of mass communication and one of the most important mass communication media is the broadcasting system par excellence. The mass electorate and the mass media of communication are both rather recent

58

THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD

phenomena. The situation in the nineteenth century or even in the beginning of this century was quite different. There was no radio, no cinematograph film, even the newspaper industry was not so widespread as it is today nor was adult suffrage in vogue in many countries. Prof. William A. Robson in his little but valuable book "The Governors And The Governed" says— "The politicians of the nineteenth century addressed small electorates consisting of fairly well educated persons, some of whom were traditionally interested in politics. The modern electorate is so vast that it can only be reached through the media of mass communication".—(page 58) It must not be forgotten that the electoral process today has become in the main a contest in manipulation of voters by campaign and propaganda and in that process by the successful use and utilisation of various mass media, such as broadcasting, newspapers etc. The broadcasting facilities are being availed of in India by the people not only in urban areas but also in rural areas. This is clearly shown by the extensive use of transistors in large numbers by the people. It is quite often noticed that people coming from the rural areas to the towns or returning to their villages from the towns on bicycles often have transistors hanging from their shoulders. Even the pedestrians are quite often found listening to radio news and music while walking along roads and streets. It should also be borne in mind that the ordinary voter is not interested in the complex political and economic issues of the day. He is most particularly interested in the economic problems which can be seen to have a direct bearing on his own immediate conditions. Under all these conditions and circumstances, the utilisation of the facilities offered by the All India Radio is of utmost importance to the political parties. But unfortunately^ in spite of the best efforts of the Election Commission and the sincere desire of the All India Radio, this valuable and highly powerful institution of mass media has not been utilized by the political parties up till now at the time of elections. The reason has been that the principal political parties have not been able to come to an agreement on the use of the All India Radio and the distribution of the broadcasting time amongst them. The Election Commission started making attempts right since the First General Election of 1951-52. The last attempt was made in the beginning of December, 1970 when it was not known to any body that the Fifth General Election to the Lok Sabha would be held in February-March, 1971 instead of in February-March, 1972. The Commission addressed a long letter to the various political parties on the 7th December, 1970 but nothing came out ultimately because of lack of agreement among the political parties. Ultimately after a careful consideration of the matter the Commission has decided that it will not take the initiative in the matter as attempts made by it on all previous occasions have met with failure. On the 24th August, 1971, the Commission accordingly addressed a letter to the Director General of All India Radio in which it was stated "that the Commission does not propose to take any initiative in the matter as attempts made by it on previous occasions have

THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD

59

met with failure". I think the best thing will be for the political parties to meet and sit together and try to come to some agreement on the utilization of the facilities which are available from the All India Radio. In Great Britain also the political parties do the same. Thus in a small publication of the Central Office of Information, London, it is stated— "The arrangements for broadcasting during a general election are settled in joint consultation between the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the Independent Television Authority (ITA), and the main political parties—an agreed series of party election broadcasts, based on the number of candidates a party is putting up, being transmitted on both the sound and television services of the BBC and on independent television. The television broadcasts are relayed simultaneously by both authorities." It is hoped that in future the political parties both National and State, should in consultation with the All India Radio be able to come to some sort of agreement as in Great Britain on the utilisation of the Radio and Television at the time of elections. During the campaign period in 1971—General Election the Election Commission also took a number of steps to give wide publicity to important matters relating to election. The Films Division, the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity and the All India Radio—all under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting—sincerely cooperated with the Election Commission in the matter of publicity by different means and methods. Two documentary films "Your Vote" and "Voting—Doing It Right" were produced by the Films Division. Cinema slides with the following captions were prepared by the D.A.V.P. : (a) Vote without fear. Your vote is secret; (b) Don't accept any bribe or inducement in casting vote; (c) Your polling station is nearby. Do not use transport provided by candidate or agent; (d) It is your sacred duty to vote. Your vote elects your Government. The D.A.V.P. and AIR also arranged press advertisements and commercial radio broadcasts in relation to the following : (a) All arrangements are being made to ensure that polling in the General Elections is peaceful, free and fair. Intimidation of voters and impersonation in voting will be severely dealt with; (b) Exercise your right to vote without fear or favour. Your vote is secret; (c) Do not accept any bribe or inducement in casting your vote; (d) Your polling station is near your residence. Do not use transport provided by the candidate or his agent; (e) Remember, as an adult citizen, it is your sacred duty to vote.

60

THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD

•: In the iiext place, ail appeal to the People of India was made by the! Chief; Election Commissioner. This was given the widest possible publicity through the various mass media like newspapers etc. The appeal was as follows: . "An Appeal to The People of India by The Chief Election Commissioner of India My fellow citizens, The Fifth General Election to the House of the People is now near at hand. At this time a heavy responsibility lies upon you because it is at the time of a general election that you get an opportunity to take a direct part in the government of the country by casting your vote in favour of the candidate of your choice. By your vote you elect the members of the House of People and out of the members of the House of the People, our Rashtrapatiji appoints the Prime Minister of India and other Ministers. Thus in a very real sense, you are the ultimate rulers of this vast and great Ancient Land of Bharat. As an humble servant 'of yours, I, therefore, make the following appeal to you:— (i) do not fail to give your vote; : (ii) give your vote in favour of the candidate of your own choice without any fear or favour; (iii) do not be afraid of any intimidation or coercion or any threat of intimidation or coercion; (iv) if somebody dares to offer you any bribe or other illegal gratification, then take courage to drive that man away however powerful he may be because he is a morally weak man; by offering you bribe or other illegal gratification, he insults you as a man, as a self-respecting citizen of India; (v) do not go to the polling booth in any vehicle offered by any person because the polling booth is only within one and onefourth of a mile (two kilometres) from your residence. Each one of us can easily walk this small distance. If by your vote you elect proper persons, then our National Parliament will consist of worthy sons and daughters of the land and our Government also will be a truly good Government dedicated to the service and well-being of the People of India. New Delhi, ... the 17th January, 1971."

Sd/(S.P. Sen-Varma) Chief Election Commissioner of India

THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD

6$

Lastly, the Chief Election Commissioner also spoke to the electorate on the 17th February, 1971 on the National hookup. The text of the speech is produced below: "Broadcast Talk of the Chief Election Commissioner of India, Shri S. P. Sen-Varma, dated the 11 th February, 1971. AN APPEAL FOR PEACEFUL, FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS My Fellow Citizens, The countrywide Fifth General Elections to constitute a new House of the People are on and each one of us is again going to get an opportunity to take a direct part in the governance of this vast country by electing our own representatives from the 518 parliamentary constituencies into which the whole of India has been divided. The House of the People or, as we call it, the Lok Sabha has during the last 21 years made itself by its functions, actions and performances an integral and indispensable part of our national political life. In the course of these years it has become 'The Grand Inquest of the Nation'. It has made and is making the people of India day by day a politically conscious people. This is an achievement of which every Indian should be proud. A tremendous responsibility therefore lies upon each one of us, the voters, in choosing as members of the Lok Sabha the proper type of persons according to his own choice and free will. The vote which the voter will be asked to cast on the day of the poll is nothing but an expression of his choice of the candidate whom he considers best to be his representative in the most powerful organ of our constitutional machinery, the House of the People. Every voter may for this purpose listen to the discussions and speeches of various candidates and their leaders, supporters and followers. But after listening to all discussions and speeches the final choice of the person for whom he will vote shall have to be, and shall be, made by him and him alone. But in the exercise of this free choice several big obstacles block our way. First of all, there are candidates and their supporters—I believe their number is not large—who have a big purse with which they may come forward to offer bribes in cash or kind to the voters. Offer of bribe is a positive affront to human personality and to the dignity of the individual citizen because a voter is not commodity which can be purchased by a man of means. Therefore, if anybody comes to you with a direct or indirect suggestion for giving bribe to influence your choice and judgement in giving your vote, please do not hesitate to turn him away by the neck and, if possible, to hand him over to the police so that bribery will be banished for ever from our system of elections. In the next place, there is the fear that the more influential and the more affluent sections of the community may exercise intimidation and coercion over voters who belong to the weaker sections of the people to vote for a particular candidate or not to vote at all. They are threatened

62

THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD

that if they do not do so, then they will be visited with dire consequences in various shapes and forms. This is definitely not the way of democracy. In the next place, and that is the most dangerous aspect, there is the problem of violence and the application of physical force to influence the pattern and trend of voting. This danger has assumed dangerous proportions this time in some parts of the country. Every day as we open the morning newspapers we find reports of murders, stabbing, head breaking and other violent crimes occasioned by clashes between the supporters and followers of various political parties who have set up candidates in these elections. In this respect a heavy responsibility lies upon the leaders, representatives, supporters and followers of the political parties. There is another kind of violence resorted to by persons who do not have any faith in democratic elections. I am told that a good number of these persons are young bright boys of our country. A few days back, I made an appeal to them. I would again request them to pause for a moment and to think that violence, though it may be supported by some great thinkers and great leaders of men as a means of achieving social ends under particular conditions and circumstances, may not be suitable for, and necessary in, every country or situation. In the case of social maladies, as in the case of diseases of the body, the same remedy may produce entirely different results in different cases, because the history, tradition, philosophy and culture, constitution, structure and conditions of one social organism may differ basically from those of another. Even Karl Marx did not regard violence as a necessary means for bringing about social revolution in England. This is clear from what Frederick Engles wrote in 1886 about Marx on this point in his preface to the English Edition of 'Capital', (I quote) :— "Meanwhile, each succeeding winter brings up afresh the great question, 'What to do with the unemployed': but while the number of the unemployed .keeps swelling from year to year, there is no body to answer that question; and we can almost calculate the moment when the unemployed losing patience, will take their own fate into their own hands. Surely, at such a moment, the voice ought to be heard of a man whose whole theory is the result of a life-long study of the economic history and conditions of England, and whom that study led to the conclusion that at least in Europe, England is the only country where the inevitable social revolution might be effected entirely by peaceful and legal means." (I unquote). In this connection, I may draw attention to the tremendous importance and economic implications of universal adult suffrage introduced in the political life of this country by article 326 of the Constitution of India. Universal adult suffrage in effect and substance provides for the transfer of power and authority of the State from the few to the multitude so that the multitude may utilise that power and authority through their properly

THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD

elected representatives for their own good. (I quote) :—

63

As Prof. Laski once said,

"The new economic order means universal suffrage; universal suffrage means the conquest by the multitude of the power to operate political institutions. They are bound to use that power so to operate them as to make them responsive to the needs not so far met by the habits of the State. Their authority makes things seem a natural part of justice which, even a generation ago, would have been deemed impracticable by statesmen. They impose upon society conditions favourable to their preponderance in exactly the same way as their predecessors. Law, morality, religion, move in terms of the new rhythm of life just as they have done when other classes attain to power. They elevate the conceptions of which they have need into the same objects of veneration that other conceptions have had in previous social system". (I unquote).

The two most powerful giants which, in my view, are the causes of the present discontent among our young boys and girls are poverty and unemployment. Unless these two gigantic social evils can be effectively tackled as quickly as possible, the present discontent will not disappear from among our boys and girls. Our educational system, I venture to submit, requires a thorough overhauling. More than half a» century back, the Calcutta University Commission presided over by the noted British educationist, Sir Michael Sadler, described the system of education in this country as a system that created expectations which could not be fulfilled. It goes without saying that unfulfilled expectations engender frustration. And frustration in its turn stirs up anger and violent passions, specially when promises are held out to the impressionable youths that the pace of social transformation can be quickened through violent methods. But violence begets violence. And murder is its own cause because the other side is there to take reprisal. It is a vicious circle. It is like primitive blood feud which our ancient forefathers used to practise. Many of our young boys and girls are, I am told, bright and brilliant. They are the flowers of the Land and light of the Nation. I appeal to them in all humility in the name of this great Land, in the name of democracy and adult suffrage, and in the name of their bright and brilliant intellect, to reflect upon the economic implications of adult suffrage which, if properly exercised and practised, can definitely help bring about social and economic transformation of this land in an entirely peaceful manner.

I would appeal to the leaders and representatives, supporters and followers of various political parties who are participating in these elections to desist from, and not to encourage, violence and other corrupt, evil and nefarious practices for the sake of winning elections. In Great Britain, there has not been a single election petition on the ground of any corrupt practice since the year 1911.

64

THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD

I need not miss this Opportunity,also to make a fervent appeal to the presiding and polling officers, from some of whom I have received representations and communications expressing their reluctance to do election duties on account of fear of violence, to shed their fear phychosis and to take part in the national duties in an absolutely impartial and fair manner. In this connection I would make an earnest appeal to the employees of certain State Government to call off in the national interest their indefinite strike and thereby ensure the smooth conduct of the poll. And lastly, my earnest appeal is to the 275 millions of voters. I appeal to them to muster courage and to turn up at the polling stations in their thousands and millions on the polling day for the purpose of exercising their valued right of casting their votes without fear for the candidates of their own free choice and judgement. At this important hour of our national life may the Supreme Dispenser of India's Destiny lead the People towards a richer, fuller and better life. I thank you, my Fellow Citizens." The newspapers in the country, in English as well as in regional languages also, gave their unstinted cooperation and support in the matter of publicity relating to all aspects of the general election. The Commission takes this opportunity to record its heartfelt and sincere appreciation of the help and cooperation received from the Press, various news agencies, All India Radio, the D.A.V.P., the Press Information Bureau and the Films Division. A few words about the reservation and allotment of symbols may be mentioned here. Allotment of symbols to the candidates set up by the National parties other than the Indian National Congress, to the candidates set up by the State parties and to the independent candidates was done in accordance with the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 and rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. As a result of the split in the Indian National Congress, two rival groups emerged, one presided over by Shri Jagjivan Ram and the other presided over by Shri Nijalingappa. By the decision of the Election Commission in the Congress Symbol Case, the group led by Shri Jagjivan Ram was found to be the Indian National Congress. The group led by Shri Nijalingappa however, was also recognised as a National party and it was asked to apply for reservation of symbol with a suitable name for that group. Against the decision of the Election Commission an appeal was taken before the Supreme Court on behalf of the group led by Shri Nijalingappa and an application was made before the Supreme Court for the stay of the operation of the decision of the Election Commission. Accordingly, on the 20th January, 1971, the Supreme Court granted stay in the following words :— "(1) THAT neither of the parties, viz. THE Indian National Congress of which Shri Jagjivan Ram is the President and the Indian National Congress of which Shri S. Nijalingappa

THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD

65

is the President will be entitled to use the symbol of 'two bullocks with the yoke on' which has been reserved for the Indian National Congress, for the purpose of the Elections to the Parliament and the State Legislatures pending the hearing and final disposal by this Court of the appeal abovementioned; (2) THAT no effect shall be given to the declaration, given by the Election Commission of India New Delhi by its Decision dated the 11th January, 1971 sought to be appealed against herein that the group led by Shri Jagjivan " Ram is the Indian National Congress; (3) THAT it shall be open to the Election Commission of India, New Delhi to allot to the two parties referred to in clause one supra, separate symbols for the purpose of Elections which may take place pending the hearing and final disposal by this Court of appeal above-mentioned." Immediately thereafter, on the same day, i.e., 20th January, 1971, the Congress led by Shri Nijalingappa made an application for allotment of one of the following four symbols in order of preference, namely :— (1) (2) (3) (4)

Charkha. Charkha being plied by a woman. Mother with a child in arms. A Kisan with sheaf of corn on her shoulder.

Before and after this date, the Congress led by Shri Jagjivan Ram objected to the allotment of the symbol 'Charkha' to the group led by Shri Nijalingappa. Thus on the 9th January, 1971, i.e. before the delivery of the decision in the Congress Symbol Case, the General Secretary of the group led by Shri Jagjivan Ram, Shri H. N. Bahuguna, objected that the symbol 'Charkha' should not be granted to the party led by Shri Nijalingappa as the 'Charkha' "is a part and parcel of our party flag". Similar objection was taken by Shri Bahuguna by a letter to the Commission dated 20th January, 1971. Thereafter, on the 24th January, 1971, Shri Jagjivan Ram, President of the Indian National Congress led by him, wrote a letter that the symbol 'Child' might be reserved for his party. Then he mentioned that he was giving the second and third preferences of the symbols for his party as follows: Second preference — "Calf and Cow" Third preference—"Youth bearing Torch". In the meantime, the Bhartiya Kranti Dal had taken exception to the fourth preference of the Indian National Congress led by Shri Nijalingappa, namely, "A Kisan with sheaf of corn on her shoulder". Perhaps for this reason that group gave up its claim to its fourth preference. As serious objection was taken by the Indian National Congress led by Shri Jagjivan Ram to the reservation of the symbol 'Charkha' to the Indian National Congress presided over by Shri Nijalingappa, the Commission decided that this symbol which was the first preference of the group led by Shri Nijalingappa should not be reserved for it. The Commission however decided

66

THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD

that the Indian National Congress presided over by Shri Nijalingappa might be allotted the symbol 'Charkha being plied by a Woman' which was its second preference and as the second preference symbol was being reserved for the Nijalingappa group, the Commission felt that justice demanded that the first preference symbol of the Jagivan Ram group should not be reserved for it but the second preference symbol of that group, namely, 'Calf and Cow' should be reserved. As the tension between the two groups at that time was running very high, the Commission felt that interests of justice would be amply served in this process and no one would then be in a position to raise any objection also if for each of the groups their respective second preference symbols were reserved. A notification was issued on the 25th January, 1971 to this effect. That notification is reproduced below:

"ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA New Delhi, the 25th January, 1971

NOTIFICATION No. 56|71-I. Whereas the Indian National Congress led by Shri S. Nijalingappa has as a temporary measure requested that any of the symbols mentioned below in order of preference may be allotted to the said Congress, that is to say:— (i) 'Charkha' (ii) 'Charkha being plied by a woman' (iii) 'Mother with a child in arms', and (iv) 'A kisan with sheaf of corn on her shoulder'; And whereas the Indian National Congress led by Shri Jagjivan Ram has as a temporary measure requested that any of the symbols mentioned below in order of preference may be allotted to the said Congress, that is to say :— (i) 'Child1 (.ii) 'Calf and cow' (iii) 'Youth bearing torch'; And whereas by a subsequent letter, the Indian National Congress led by Shri S. Nijalingappa has informed the Election Commission of India that it is not pressing for the symbol 'A Kisan with sheaf of corn on her shoulder' as its fourth preference;

THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD

6?

Now, therefore, in compliance of the Order of Supreme Court of India dated the 20th January, 1971, regarding the allotment of symbols and notwithstanding anything contained in the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, or any other notification issued thereunder and in exercise of the powers conferred on it by article 324 of the Constitution of India, rule 5 and rule 10 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, and paragraph 6, paragraph 7, paragraph 8, and paragraph 18 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, and all other powers enabling it in that behalf, the Election Commission of India hereby directs:— (a) that the symbol 'Charkha being plied by a woman' which is the second preference of the Indian National Congress led by Shri Nijalingappa may be reserved as a temporary measure for that Congress; (b) the symbol 'Calf and cow' which is the second preference of the Indian National Congress led by Shri Jagjivan Ram, may be reserved as a temporary measures for that Congress; in all the States and Union territories of India until further orders. By order, A. N. SEN, Secretary" A Press-Note also was issued on the very same day for the information of the general public. But man with his limited knowledge thinks one way in the belief that he was doing justice but inscrutable destiny produces just the reverse result thereby amply proving the truth of what has been stated in the Shrimat Bhagavad Gita, that one has jurisdiction and competence over his action (Karma) but none over the fruits of actions! On the 27th of January, objections were received from the Congress led by Shri Nijalingappa, from the Bhartiya Kranti Dal, from Bhartiya Jana Sangh and from the Swatantra Party. Objections were also received from Shri C. Rajagopalachari and Shri K. Kamaraj in identical words. The sum and substance of all these objections were that the symbol 'Calf and Cow' or 'Gomaata' is an object of religious worship and therefore should not be brought into the arena of politics. Shri Homidaji of Madhya Pradesh Communist Party also raised an objection on the ground describing 'Cow' symbol as semi-religious. Prof. N. G. Ranga raised objection on an entirely different line. His objection was that the new symbol 'Calf and Cow' might be liable to be mistaken by the people for former 'Two bullocks with yoke on' symbol and that therefore this mischivious confusion should be avoided. Prof. Ranga thus did not raise his objection on the plea that the symbol 'Calf and Cow' was a religious symbol. The Secretary Kutch Rajput Sabha also objected to the symbol 'Calf and Cow' on religious grounds. Dr. A. Natarajan of Madras, however, sent a telegram strongly criticising the views of Shri C. Rajagopalachari and Shri Kamaraj. His point was that the objection raised by Rajaji and Shri Kamaraj to the symbol 'Calf and Cow' was equally applicable to the symbols 'Rising Sun', 'Lamp (Deepak)', and 'Star', etc.

68

THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD*

The Commission however sent all these objections on the very same day, namely, the 27th January, 1971 to the Indian National Congress presided over by Shri Jagjivan Ram. On the very same day, Shri Jagjivan Ram sent a letter to the Chief Election Commissioner that the objections raised with regard to the symbol "Calf and Cow' were "baseless and frivolous", that there was no question of any close association of the concept of "Two Bullocks with Yoke on" with "Calf and Cow"; and even illiterate electorate can easily distinguish between the two. Then he said t h a t : "it was absolutely wrong to suggest that the symbol 'Calf and Cow' has religious associations. As a matter of fact, the concept signifies the progress, health of the Nation and prosperity in a country where eighty per cent population depends on the rural economy for their prosperity. The parties in reference have objected to the symbol malafide only in order to create confusion. Many amongst the recognised symbols find mention in one or other religious books but they have not been treated as ; religious symbols. The case of 'Calf and Cow' stands on a different footing altogether. The said symbol is nowhere treated as a religious symbol by any religious books or Shastras". • Then he said that in view of the close proximity of the general election, all the candidates of his party had been informed of the symbol 'Calf and Cow' and State and district units of his party had already been informed to start campaign with that symbol, and that therefore no change should be made at that stage in the symbol. •_•• After this, I recorded on the 29th January, 1971, the following notes:

'

"This telegram from Dr. A. Natarajan of Madras differs from the views of Rajaji and Kamaraj regarding the allotment of symbol 'Calf and Cow' to the Indian National Congress led by Shri Jagjivan Ram. According to him, the objections raised by Rajaji and Shri K. Kamraj apply equally to the symbols 'Rising Sun', 'Star' and 'Lamp'. This is the view which we have been holding all along. Several Supreme Court judgments, in the "Om flag" case, in the "Dhruva Star" case and the Mysore High Court case relating to "Two bullocks with yoke on" make the position absolutely clear. The Hindu Pantheon is so large and wide that in it any object, animate or inanimate, can be included as an object of religious veneration. Anyway, I need not dilate much on this point at this stage. Sd/(S. P. Sen-Varma) 29-1-1971"

The reason for the allotment of the symbol 'Calf and Cow' to the group led by Shri Jagjivan Ram was, as I have already stated, to do equal justice between the two groups. Because the second preference symbol, namely 'Charkha being plied by a woman' was allotted to the Nijalingappa group, I thought that in the interests of justice, the second preference symbol, namely, 'Calf and Cow' should be reserved for the other group also;

THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD

69

otherwise the Jagjivan Ram group had never asked for the second preference symbol. I thought that if the first preference of that group, namely, 'CMld' WaS allotted to that group, then Shri Nijalingappa's group might criticise the decision as an unfair and unjust because to his group, the second preference symbol had been granted. Moreover, it never struck me that objections might be raised on religious grounds. Having been influenced by the profoundest ideas and fathomless thoughts of the Vedas, the Upanishads and>sthe Gita and having grown up in the traditions of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Shri Rama Krishna Parmahansa, Swami Vivekananda, Rabindra Nath Tagore and Sri Aurobindo, it never occurred to me that objection might be raised on ground of religion to the reservation of the symbol 'Calf and Cow' to any party. The principal pillars on which the Hindu religion stands are 'Sarvam Khalwidam Brahma', 'Ayam Atma Brahma', 'Tattwamasi' and 'Sohamasmi'. Swami Vivekananda in the Parliament of Religions in Chicago in the year 1893 could conquer the West by relying on this ennobling philosophy of Hindu religion and not upon any "Cow philosophy". The 'Cow' may be and should be the object of our extreme care and for that reason if one may like to say, even our reverence, but it is difficult to accept the view that 'Cow' represents the Hindu religion. Even those who call 'Cow' 'Gomata' will, I think, feel insulted if they are addressed as 'sons of the cow' "Gai Ke bachhe" instead of as sons of the Immortal "Amritasya Putrah". Under 'Sarvam Khaliwidam Brahma', everything, every created being, inanimate and animate, from the stars in infinite space down to the sands in the bed of the ocean, every thought, every action, in other words whatever has existed in the past, exists in the present or will or may exist in the future, whatever that has occurred to human mind and brain in the past, occurs now or may occur in the future, whatever action has been done in the past, is being done now or may be done in the future and in any place or space, will come within the range of this widest possible concept. In that view whatever symbol is used may be regarded as a religious symbol. I need not cite here innumerable verses and passages from the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Gita for this purpose. Having regard to the grand concept of Hindu religion and Hindu philosophy, George Bernard Shaw in his book "Everybody's Political What's What?", (2nd Edition, (1945), page 227), said:— "The apparent multiplication of Gods is bewildering at the first glance; but you soon discover that they are all the same God in different aspects and functions and even sexes. There is always one uttermost God who defies personification. This makes Hinduism the most tolerant religion in the world, because its one transcendant God includes all possible Gods, from elephant Gods, birds Gods and snake Gods, right upto the great Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, which makes room for the Virgin Mary and modern feminism by making Shiva a woman as well as a man. Christ is there as Krishna, who might also be Dionysos. In fact Hinduism is so elastic and so subtle that the propoundest Methodist and the crudest idolater are equally at home in it." Therefore, from the standpoint of principle and philosophy, it is difficult to regard the symbol 'Calf and Cow' as a religious symbol to the exclusion of any other symbol. If 'Calf and Cow' is to be regarded as a religious 3 EC/72—6

70

THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD

symbol, the 'Banyan Tree' reserved for the SSP at that time or the 'Rising Sun' reserved for the DMK, or the 'Star' reserved for the Swatantra party and the 'Lamp' (Deepak) reserved for the Bhartiya Jana Sangh should all be regarded as religious symbols. Even the 'Elephant' or the 'Lion' should be regarded as such. As has been pointed out, in that case no symbol, i.e., no pictorial representation of anything, can at all be used in elections. Then, the Supreme Court and the other High Courts in * number of cases have dealt with the question of religious symbols including the question whether the symbol 'Cow' is a religious symbol and have discussed the meaning and significance of religious symbols. After the general election in 1971 in a number of election petitions, elections of the successful candidates were challenged on the ground that the elections had been vitiated by the use by the returned candidates of the symbol 'Calf and Cow'. In a number of cases, these points which were seriously canvassed before the High Courts, were rejected. In other cases, for example, the cases in the Mysore High Court, these points were not ultimately pressed by the election petitioners finding perhaps that the objections and allegations raised by them were hardly of any substance. Perhaps for all these reasons, at the time of the Fifth General Elections to the various State Legislative Assemblies, in 1972 the Commission did not receive any complaint or objection as to the use of the symbol 'Calf and Cow' by the Indian National Congress.

CHAPTER VII THE POLL "The most obvious sign of democracy in any community is the vote. In the early nineteenth century the chief political issue was the right to vote; adult suffrage for both sexes is now generally regarded as the only true political democracy. Citizens are supposed to think of public affairs and to make decisions by voting on certain issues in public policy; and this is held to distinguish a citizen from a subject." —Delisle Burns, Democracy, pages 119-20. 2. "At a poll one vote is as good as another, the ignorant and unreflecting counting for as much as the well-informed and wise, but in the formation of opinion knowledge and thought prevail." Bryce,—Modern Democracies —(1962—Indian Edition), Vol. I, page 180. 3. "The secret ballot, we now realise, is one of our basic liberties not to be given up without a struggle." —Dimock & Dimock, American Government in Action, page 294. 4. "The polling places should be so numerous as to be within easy reach of every voter, and no expenses of conveyance at the cost of the candidate, should be tolerated under any pretext." —John Stuart Mill, Representative Government, Chapter X. Already in some of the previous chapters, detailed information has been given about the polling stations, polling personnel, the number of days on which the poll was taken in various States and Union territories, printing of ballot papers and other polling materials required on the day of poll by the polling staff etc. in relation to the taking of the poll. It is unnecessary to repeat that information in extenso here. The poll may be regarded as the culmination of the hectic activities carried on during the campaign period by the contesting candidates and 71

72

THE POLL

political parties. On the day of poll, the principal function of the contesting candidates and the political parties and their workers is to see that the largest number of voters come to the polling stations to cast their votes. For this purpose, the candidates and parties sometimes do not even hesitate to take to extra legal and illegal methods, such as, the free conveyance of voters to the polling stations, or the offer of bribes to the voters with a view to influencing them in the matter of casting their votes in favour of any particular candidate or candidates. As the election is par excellence a fight for winning power to carry on the affairs of the most powerful human association, namely, the State, the candidates and parties sometimes do not hesitate to have recourse to any means and methods however illegal, immoral, foul or nefarious they may be. I am reminded in this connection of what I heard in the course of my tour which I undertook about four years back to supervise a keenly contested bye-election in the South. The workers of a particular political party and candidate told me in presence of the election officers and others that after mid-night of that day, which was the day immediately preceding the day of poll, distribution of money to the voters through the local representatives would start. 1 immediately asked the police officers to keep a close watch on the situation. However, I am not in a position to say how far this allegation was correct. No election petition was filed in that case and nothing about the truth or otherwise of this allegation could, therefore, be found out. But this much may be said that the increase in the number of polling stations and the reduction of the maximum distance between the residence of a voter and his polling station to two kilometres have undoubtedly lessened the corrupt practice of free conveyance of voters on the day of poll to the polling stations. When the distance is two furlongs, half a mile or even a mile, very few voters would like to avail themselves of the free conveyance provided by or on behalf of the candidates. Then the giving of money to the voters to influence their voting in favour of a particular candidate cannot always ensure that all the voters to whom money has been given would vote in favour of that particular candidate. The voters possess strong commonsense and they know for whom to vote. Therefore, even if they accept money from a particular candidate or his workers, they may cast their votes for another candidate. As the total number of parliamentary constituencies was 518 throughout the country and the total number of polling stations throughout the country was about 3,43,000 (the exact number being 3,42,944) the number of election staff for the conduct of the poll was fantastically high, as it had to be. For each polling station, the minimum number of polling personnel was four—one presiding officer and three polling officers. In some States like Kerala, the number was five—-one presiding officer and four polling officers. Even in the same State, in some constituencies, the number was five and in some others, the number was four. Then there were returning officers for the 518 constituencies and five, six or seven assistant returning officers to help the returning officers in each constituency. Thus the number of officers engaged in the conduct of elections to the Lok Sabha and the State Legislative Assemblies of Orissa, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal in 1971 was more than 17 lakhs as will appear from the table given below:—

73

THE POLL

TABLE Information regarding number of officers engaged in conduct of General Elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies of Orissa, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal held in 1971. Name of State/Union territory 1. Andhra Pradesh 2. A s s a m . 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Bihar . . Gujarat . . Haryana . Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Kerala M a d h y a Pradesh Maharashtra Manipur

.

.

.

. . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

.

.

.

.

. .

.

.

12. Meghalaya 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Mysore Nagaland Orissa Punjab Rajasthan

. . . . . . . . . . .•'-.'»•

.

18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

Tamil Nadu Tripura Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Andaman & Nicobar Islands

23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli . . . Delhi Goa, Daman & Diu Laccadive, Minicoy & Amindivi Islands. Pondicherry . . . .

. .

. .

.

.

.

.

Gazetted

Nongazetted

Total

5,018 2,054 9,485 1,648 2,375 850 1,096 2,454 7,545 4,058 168

1,73,025 40,570 1,08,656 83,119 24,471 13,010 9,127 67,667 1,21,605 1,81,377 3,422

1,78,043 42,624 1,18,141 84,767 26,846 13,860 10,223 70,121 1,29,150 1,85,435 3,590

Included in the State of Assam.

8,158 14,398

1,40,117 6,181 88,027 42^,200 46,093 1,86,924 4,974 1,84,592 1,46,743

26 146 16

870 656 289

2,225

12,912 3,889

3,992 513 2,705 2,501

4,250 1,533 449

.

•.

Total

126 1 58

5

1,433

1,44,109 6,694 90,732 44,701 50,343 1,88,457 5,423 1,92,750 1,61,141 896 802 305N 15,137 4,015 6 1,491

77,848 16,91,954 17,69,802

As the majority of the presiding officers and the polling officers at a general election is drawn from amongst the Central Government employees and the State Government employees, the Commission requested on the 14th January, 1971 the Government of India as well as the State Governments to declare the day or days on which a particular area or constituency would go to the poll as a local holiday or holidays for that area or constituency so that those employed on election duty might reach their places

74

THE POLL

of duty in time. This would have enabled the Government employees to exercise their voting rights during the general election. Request was also made to the State Governments that the managements of commercial and industrial establishments might be persuaded to allow their employees to have some time (about three hours) during the polling period in order that they might be able to exercise their franchise if the commercial and industrial establishments could not agree to close down their offices and places of work altogether on the day or days vof polling. At the instance of the Commission, the Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance, issued an Office Memorandum on the 1st February, 1971 to all Ministries of the Central Government (with copies endorsed to all the State Governments) in which it was stated that— "The President has been pleased to decide that during the ensuing General Elections, an additional paid holiday may be granted to the employees of the various industrial establishments under the Central Government on the respective polling day(s) in the particular area(s) if it does not fall on a Sunday or a' paid holiday provided the State Governments concerned have1 declared that day as a local holiday in the area." Besides, on the 31st January, 1971, the Commission addressed a letter to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs and to the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union territories that the polling day might be declared a holiday under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This was done with a view to enable the working classes in factories and workshops to exercise, their franchise. Before addressing that letter to the Central and State Governments, the matter was discussed in the Chief Electoral Officers' conference held in New Delhi on the 4th January, 1971. The Central and State Governments were also requested to consider whether the day or each of the days of poll in any constituency might not be declared as a closed holiday for shops and commercial establishments in that constituency under the appropriate Shops and Commercial Establishments Acts in force therein instead of the usual day or days observed by them as closed holidays during the week. They were also requested to ask the factories situated in any constituency to declare the weekly holiday on the day of the poll instead of the first day of the week as provided in section 52 of the Factories Act, 1948. As a result of all these steps, (1) the day of poll in any constituency unless it was a Sunday or a public holiday was declared as a public holiday under section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 practically in every State and Union territory; and (2) the workers in factories and workshops and the employees of shops, commercial establishments and industrial concerns got sufficient opportunities to exercise their voting right. It is unnecessary to refer in detail to the various orders issued by the various State Governments and the Union territory administrations. It may be pointed out here that the Election Commission in the draft Bill which it sent to the Government as well as in its Report on the Mid-term General Elections in India, 1968-69, recommended that there should be provisions in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 itself for compelling the employers of commercial, industrial and all other business establishments to allow their employees a paid holiday on the

THE POLL

' 75

day of poll in order to enable them to cast their votes. The Joint Committee of Parliament appointed to consider the various amendments in the Election Law has accepted this recommendation of the Commission in toio. The Election Commission suggested that any contravention of any such provisions should be punishable with a fine which may extend to Rs. 50/-. However, an exception was suggested by the Commission in those cases where absence of employees might cause danger or substantial loss to the business. These recommendations have also been accepted by the Joint Committee. The Election Commission also suggested that provisions should be made for the prohibition of sale or distribution of intoxicating, spirituous or fermented liquors or strong drinks at any hotel, eating-house, tavern or any other eating places, public or private, on any polling day within the polling area and during the twenty-four hours preceding the polling day. This suggestion also has been accepted by the Joint Committee of Parliament but as the necessary law has not yet been passed, the Commission wrote a letter on the 19th February, 1971, to all the State Governments and Union territory administrations requesting them that dry days should be declared in each constituency on the day of the poll and on two days immediately preceding the day of poll. As a result of this request, almost every State Government and Union territory administration declared the polling day as well as two days or one day preceding the polling day as dry days. This helped a lot in attaining the object of ensuring peaceful elections throughout the country. With a view to preventing impersonation and bogus voting under the cover of burqa, particularly in polling stations where large number of purdhanashin electors are assigned, the Commission addressed the Chief Electoral Officers of all States and Union territories as early as 5th February, 1970 that every attempt should be made to appoint lady presiding and polling officers in such polling stations subject to the availability of suitable women officers for the purpose. The Chief Electoral Officers were asked to instruct the district election officers and the returning officers that while drafting presiding and polling officers for a general election or even for any bye-election, they should examine the availability of female polling personnel when appointing presiding and polling officers for polling stations set up exclusively for female voters, specially where purdhanashin women were large. This would have the effect of also ensuring convenience of female voters in casting their votes. Under the law a few categories of persons arc entitled to vote by postal ballot. While voting by proxy is prohibited by our election law, voting by postal ballot is permissible in certain cases. Section 59 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, provides that at every election where a poll is taken votes shall be given by ballot in such manner as may be prescribed and no votes shall be received by proxy. This is a departure from the law in Great Britain where voting by proxy is allowed. Under section 60 of the aforesaid Act, the following categories of persons can exercise their franchise by voting by postal ballot, namely— (1) members of the armed forces of the Union;

76

THE POLL

(2) members of any force to which the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 have been made applicable whether with or without modifications; (3) members of an armed police force of a State who are serving outside that State; (4) persons who are employed under the Government of India in posts outside India; (5) the wives of the aforesaid persons provided they are ordinarily residing with their respective husbands; and (6) persons subjected to preventive detention under any law for the time being in force. The persons mentioned against items 1 to 5 must however be registered as voters in the electoral rolls of their respective home constituencies in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) and sub-section (5) of section 20 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. In addition to the above six categories of persons, two other categories of persons can vote by postal ballot, namely, (1) special voters, and (2) voters on election duty. (See rule 17 and rule 18 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961). A special voter means a person holding an office to which the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 20 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 are declared to apply as well as the wife of such person if he or she has been registered as an elector by virtue of a statement made in sub-section(5) of the said section 20. A voter on election duty means any polling agent or any polling officer, presiding officer, or any other public servant, who is an elector in the constituency and by reason of his being on election duty at a polling station unable to vote at the polling station where he is entitled to vote. Thus, altogether eight categories of persons are entitled to vote by postal ballot at an election to the House of the People or to a Legislative Assembly. The Election Commission some time back received representations from the National Shipping Board and Maritime Union of India that facilities of postal ballot papers should be extended to the officers and seamen of the Indian Merchant Navy. The total number of such officers and seamen will be in the neighbourhood of thirty thousand. From the very nature of their duties these persons are more often than not to pass their time in their vessels either at the various ports of the world or on the high seas. It is, therefore, practically impossible for them to cast their votes by coming to their respective polling stations. Such a large number of Indian citizens should not be deprived of their franchise. After carefully considering the whole matter and discussing the same with the representatives of the seamen, the Commission recommended some time back that facility of postal ballot should be extended to the officers and seamen of the Indian Merchant Navy. This recommendation of the Election Commission has been accepted by the Joint Committee of Parliament on amendments of Election Law. The Commission hopes that this recommendation should be enacted by Parliament as quickly as possible.

THE POLL

77

The Commission would like to point out at the same time, that the categories of persons to whom the facility to vote by post may be extended, should not be expanded and increased any further. Voting by postal ballot is somewhat unusual and courts in other countries have labelled it a special privilege. The Government and Parliament should be careful not to expand the categories of persons to whom the facilities of postal voting may be made available. The largest number of persons who exercise their franchise by postal voting consists of course of the members of the armed forces of the Union. Under rule 5(2) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, the last part of the electoral roll contains only the names of service voters, i.e., the members of the armed forces and the persons employed under the Government of India in a post outside India and their wives. The number of special voters is very limited. Under sub-section(4) of section 20 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the holders of the following offices are special voters because these offices have been declared under that sub-section by the President by a notification No. S.O. 959 dated 18th April, 1960, namely— 1. The President of India. 2. The Vice-President of India. 3. Governors of States. 4. Cabinet Ministers of the Union or of any State 5. The Deputy Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission. 6. The Ministers of State of the Union or any State. 7. Deputy Ministers of the Union or of any State. 8. The Speaker of the House of the People or of any State Legislative Assembly. 9. The Chairman of any State Legislative Council. 10. Lieutenant Governors of Union territories. 11. The Deputy Speaker of the House of the People or of any State Legislative Assembly. 12. The Deputy Chairman of the Council of States or of any State Legislative Council. 13. Parliamentary Secretaries of the Union or of any State. A voter on election duty if he is a polling officer or a presiding officer or any other public servant on election duty, has an option in the matter of voting. He has the option either to vote by postal ballot or to vote in the ordinary manner by going to the polling station. If he wishes to vote by post at an election, he will make an application to the Returning Officer in Form 12 attached to the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 in accordance with rule 20 of the said Rules, and if the Returning Officer is satisfied that the applicant is a voter on election duty, he shall issue a postal ballot paper to him. But such voter may elect not to vote by post but in person by going to the polling station itself. This is provided for in rule 20(2) of the aforesaid Rules. In such a case, he has to apply to the Returning

78

THE POLL

Officer in Form 12A for an Election Duty Certificate (E.D.C.) and if the Returning Officer is satisfied that the applicant is such polling officer or presiding officer or any other public servant on election duty in the constituency, he shall issue to the applicant an Election Duty Certificate in Form 12B and mark the words "E.D.C." against his name in the marked copy of the electoral roll to indicate that an election duty certificate has been issued to him and shall also ensure that such voter is not allowed to vote at the polling station where he would otherwise have been entitled"to vote. Personal voting on the basis of E.D.C. can be exercised by a polling officer, a presiding officer or any other public servant on election duty only if he is on election duty in the constituency of which he is an elector but he is on such duty at a polling station other than the one where he is entitled to vote. In such a case, he can vote at any polling station within the constituency other than the polling station where he would otherwise have been entitled to vote. To ensure this, rule 35A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, provides that when such a person produces at the polling station an election duty certificate in Form 12B and asks for a ballot paper although the polling station is different from the one where he is entitled to vote, the presiding officer shall obtain on the election duty certificate the signature of the person producing it, have the person's name and the electoral roll number as mentioned in the E.D.C. entered at the end of the marked copy of the electoral roll and then issue to him the ballot paper. Like any other elector of a constituency, a voter on election duty cannot vote in a different constituency, whether by postal ballot or 01/ the basis of "E.D.C." This facility of voting on the basis of E.D.C. is not, however, available to a voter on election duty who is the polling agent of any candidate. Such a person must have to vote only by postal ballot if he likes to vote at all. In this connection, I may refer to some of the menaces and nefarious practices resorted to specially in some parts of the country on the day of the poll. One such disturbing menace is urchin voting, that is to say, voting by boys and youngsters of the age of 10,11, or 12 years or sometimes even less. This happens mainly in the State of Bihar. Complaints have been received in the past from candidates and others about it. The election officers deputed by the Commission to supervise the elections have also narrated their experiences about urchin voting in Bihar to the same effect. These urchins and youngsters come to the polling stations in fairly good number to vote either for eligible adult persons whose names are registered in the electoral rolls or for themselves because the names of these urchins have been wrongly registered in the electoral rolls either through the indifference or intentional negligence of the enumerators and other members of the electoral registration staff. The Commission used to receive complaints regarding this menace for quite a long time from various parts of Bihar. The officers of the Commission also came across such cases. Interested persons might have encouraged this evil practice but then the Commission could not remain a silent spectator. We decided to move. Therefore, the first move was taken in the draft Bill sent to the Government towards the end of 1969, and in the Report on the Midterm General Elections in India 1968-69, in the beginning of 1970, specific recommendations were made for stopping this menace which disturbs and

THE POLL

79

tarnishes our elections. In the absence of any specific legal provisions in this respect, the concerned presiding officers found it well nigh impossible to stop such urchins from casting their votes even though there were genuine doubts that they were much below the voting age. The Commission accordingly recommended in Recommendation No. 19 in the Report that section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 should be suitably amended to provide that if an elector about whom the presiding officer is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt from the appearance of such elector and other facts and circumstances, if any, readily available to him, that such elector is less than 21 years of age, insists on casting his vote on the ground that his name is included in the electoral roll, the presiding officer shall— (a) after warning him that he will be guilty of an offence if he proved to be less than 21 years of age, and (b) after taking in the presence of two witnesses a signed written statement from him to the effect that he is not less than 21 years of age, issue a ballot paper to him, but no such ballot paper should be issued to such an elector if he refuses to sign the written statement. The Joint Committee of Parliament, however, did not accept this recommendation because the Committee felt that the cases of the kind envisaged by the Election Commission were likely to be very rare. The Committee observed that there might be borderline cases but by no stretch of imagination urchins of 10 and 11 years of age could pose a problem of this nature. The Committee also stated that there must be some finality to the electoral rolls. The Committee therefore did not agree to clothe the presiding officers with powers of such arbitrary and wide nature to meet a stray or extreme case; that would be dangerous in the opinion of the Committee. It is difficult to agree with this view of the Joint Committee or the reasons advanced in support of that view when the senior officers of the Election Commission of the status of the Deputy Election Commissioners actually met with cases of urchin voting at the time of polling in Bihar. There may be two situations in which urchin voting may take place. In the first place, some urchins may erroneously or inadvertently or even intentionally be included in the electoral rolls and on the basis of such erroneous, inadvertent or intentional inclusion, the urchin may be persuaded by interested persons to go to the polling stations to try their luck and make an attempt to cast their votes. Secondly, the urchins may personate. They may apply for ballot papers in the names of adult persons who have been correctly included in the electoral rolls or may even vote in some fictitious names. When the presiding officer finds an urchin asking for a ballot paper in either of these situations, should the presiding officer issue the ballot paper to him and thereby enable him to cast a vote by marking the ballot paper? As the recommendation of the Election Commission has not been accepted and the law has not been amended, the Election Commission some time back issued instructions in exercise of its constitutional powers under article 324 of the constitution that in such a case the ballot paper should not be issued to a person who prima facie appears to be an urchin of much below the age of 21 years. Article 326 of the Constitution

80

THE POLL

says that a person who is a citizen of India and is not less than 21 years of age shall subject to certain restrictions and limitations be entitled to be registered as a voter. Section 19 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, provides inter alia that every person who is not less than 21 years of age on the qualifying date shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll. Thus, non-age is a legal and more important than that, a constitutional disability. This constitutional disability laid down in article 326 of the constitution cannot be removed by any legal provision and has not been so removed by any provision of the law. Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 does not, as it cannot, contain any provision contrary to this constitutional provision. This is why the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a Full Bench decision has clearly laid down that a person who is less than 21 years of age is not entitled to exercise his franchise by reason only of the fact that his name is entered in the electoral roll. The view of the Kerala High Court is also to the same effect. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has of course taken a contrary view. But there seems hardly any doubt that the views of the Andhra Pradesh and Kerala High Courts are in conformity with the constitutional provisions of article 326 and therefore, are better views. If we are to make our elections pure and fair, then, this constitutional disability should be applied against urchin voting with the utmost rigour. Therefore, if the names of urchins, say of the age of 10, 11, 12, 13 or 14 years are included in the electoral rolls, they cannot be allowed to vote merely by the reason of the fact that their names are in the electoral rolls. Where however, the urchins have not been registered as voters in the electoral rolls but have come to the polling stations to personate adult persons whose names are in the electoral rolls, then in such cases, there are adequate provisions already in the law to deal with such cases of impersonation and stop the urchins from getting ballot papers for the purpose of voting. The relevent provisions in this respect are contained in rule 36 and rule 37 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. These rules are, very clear and quite sufficient when urchins personate other persons at the polling stations. In order to put an end to this menace of urchin voting in Bihar, the Commission has, as mentioned earlier, taken steps by issuing necessary directions to presiding officers with the results that urchin voting is now fast disappearing from Bihar elections. This is supported by the fact that in July, 1972, I received a letter from an important Member of Parliament in Bihar that in polling station No.88 of Sissai assembly constituency of Lohardaga Parliamentary constituency, the presiding officer in collusion with the patrolling Magistrate incharge objected to a few voters to their casting votes under the plea that they were minors. This objection was raised by the presiding officer himself rather than anybody else. The Member then wrote that "it is not for the presiding officer nor for the patrolling Magistrate to assess the age of a particular voter at the material time, and if I may say so this is beyond the purview of the presiding officer." The Member brought this particular instance to the notice of the sub-divisional officer who was the Returning officer of the assembly constituency, but the sub-divisional officer supported the views of the presiding officer and the patrolling Magistrate. This clearly shows that as a result of the steps taken by the Commission, this menace of urchin voting is being properly tackled by the returning and presiding officers. I explained the legal and

THE POLL

81

constitutional provisions to the Member of ParMament concerned and I hope he was satisfied with my reply. The Commission, therefore, would again request the Parliament and the Government to put a short provision as indicated in Recommendation No. 19 in the Report on the Mid-term General Elections, 1968-69. The powers proposed to be given to the presiding officers cannot be exercised arbitrarily because unless he can procure two witnesses and unless the voter prima facie appears to be an urchin, he would not be able to move in the matter. In this connection, it may be pointed out that this aspect of the matter may also be carefully considered while considering the question of reduction of the voting age from 21 years to 18 years, because while it is not very difficult to distinguish a boy of 12, 13, or 14 or even 15 years from a boy of not less than 21 years of age, it may be difficult to distinguish a boy of 14 or 15 years from a boy of 18 years of age. Another menace to which mention may be made is the removal of ballot boxes from polling stations at the time of the poll. Sometimes it is called "booth capturing". This menace, it may be pointed out, also comes mainly from the State of Bihar with some stray cases in some other States. About booth capturing in Bihar, it may be pointed out that it has been in vogue in Bihar for quite some time, at least since the Second General Elections of 1957. The Report on the Fourth General Elections of 1967 makes specific mention of adjournment of poll and re-poll in Bihar on account of serious disturbances or apprehended breach of peace. In the General Election of 1971, there were eight cases of removal of ballot boxes in Bihar by organized gangs of goondas and other anti-social elements, two cases of removal of ballot boxes in Jammu & Kashmir and one such case in Haryana. In these eleven cases, the ballot boxes were snatched away from the polling stations inspite of the best arrangements for safeguarding the ballot boxes and the polling stations by posting a number of policemen often armed with fire arms. But inspite of such arrangements, riotous mobs armed with deadly weapons like revolvers, pipeguns, etc. attacked the polling stations, overwhelmed the security forces, threatened the presiding and polling officers and forcibly removed the ballot boxes in Bihar, Haryana and Jammu & Kashmir. A ballot box was removed from a polling station in Anantnag parliamentary constituency by a woman voter under her frurqa. The names of these various polling stations are given below :— Name of the Parliamentary constituency

Description of the polling stations

BIHAR 1. 4-Gopalganj P.C. (22-Gopalganj A.C.) 2. 4-Gopalganj P.C.' (23-Kuchaikot A.C.) 3. 5-Siwan P.C. (27-Siwan A.C.)

Polling station No. 7KatghaVra. Polling station No. 67Karmainimohabat. Polling station No. 30-L.P. School Jansikri.

") | ! j { J

Ballot boxes removed by organised gangs of goondas and riotous mobs from polling stations.

82

THE POLL

4. 7-Maharajganj P.C. (32-Maharajganj A.C.) 5. 28-Bhagalpur P.C. (t63-Sultanganj A.C.) 6. 33-NaIanda P.C. (200-Chandi A.C.) 7. 34-BarhP.C. (194-Fatwa A.C.) 8. 42-Nawada P.C. (252-Atri A.C.)

Polling station No. 105~) Rukundipur Middle School Polling station No. 51-L.P. School Uchagaon (South Tola). Polling station No. 48-Senior Basic School, Kornawan. Polling Station No. 95-L.P. School, Benipur. Polling station No. 41-Katari Tehsil Katchery. j

Ballot Boxes removed by organised gangs of goondas and riotous mobs from polling stations.

JAMMU & KASFIMIR 9. 3-Anantnag P.C. (39-Anantnag A.C.) 10. 6-JammuP.C. (60-Samba A.C.)

Polling station No. 23Malaknag. Polling station No. 5-Badwana.

Ballot box removed by a woman in her burqa. Sealed ballot boxes snatched away by miscreants who attacked the polling party on the road when it was returning from the polling station after completing the poll.

HARYANA 11. 7-Mahendragarh P.C. (62-Kanina A.C.)

Polling station No. 2 at Government primary School, Dudhwa.

The ballot box was forcibly removed and later tampered with by organised gangs of goondas.

In all the above 11 cases fresh poll was directed by the Election Commission under section 58 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In addition to these 11 cases, there were 55 more cases in some States, thus bringing the total number of cases in which the poll had to be adjourned under section 57 or fresh poll had to be directed under section 58 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to 66. Of these 66 cases, the largest number, namely,52 occured in Bihar, 3 in Haryana, 6 in Jammu & Kashmir, one in Nagaland, one in Orissa, and 3 in Uttar Pradesh. Thus it is clear that in the matter of this vicious practice of removal of ballot boxes or snatching away of bundles of ballot papers and marking them by members of unruly and riotous mobs and then dropping them into the ballot boxes or in the matter breaking the seals of the ballot boxes etc., the State of Bihar comes first. A question naturally arises who encourage this sordid practice in Bihar? Those who are conversant with the social, economic and political conditions of Bihar, know that economically inspite of its vast natural resources, Bihar is a backward State; socially it is perhaps the

83

THE POLL

most caste-ridden State in the whole India and this bane of excessive casteism vitiates in no mean degree the political atmosphere in the State. Politicians and their workers and supporters belonging mainly to three dominant castes, to whatever party or parties they may belong, take a leading part in arranging or instigating 'booth capturing' by organised goondas or hoodlums in large numbers necessitating the holding of re-poll under section 57 and fresh poll under section 58 in the concerned polling stations. Unless the politicians and political parties not only desist from indulging in or encouraging this nasty practice at elections but also openly denounce it with united voice in unequivocal terms, no arrangement however, efficient it may be, can eradicate this evil. To stop this practice in Bihar, poll has all along been staggered and spread (except in the Mid-term Election of 1969 when it was taken on a single day throughout the State) on a number of days. It is very easy to rouse feelings of hatred and enmity among the various sections of the people, most of whom are illiterate and stepped in centuries-old superstitions and blind traditions which more often than not even pass for religion. These feelings of hatred and enmity among different castes and communities once raised are difficult to quench and assuage. Those who indulge in or encourage these things are real enemies of the country because by their action they bring about disunity among the people and thwart the process of national integration. The following table will show the number of cases which occurred at the time of the general election in 1971 in the various States:— TABLE STATE OF BIHAR

(Total number of cases 52) I Statement showing fresh poll ordered by the Election Commission under section 58 (2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Name of the parliamentary Description of polling station constituency

Causes of fresh

poll

Ballot papers were stamped in respect of a particular candidate by the unruly mob and dropped into the ballot boxes or the seals of the ballot boxes were broken.

4-Gopalganj

1. 44-Baranbi Panchayat Bhawan 2. 81-PatkauliaGaura

5-Siwan .

3. 74-Krishnavarma 4. 79-Banthusiram

Do. Do.

7-Maharajganj .

5. 3-Karamkudariha 6. 64-Jajoli

Do. Do.

THE POLL

Description of polling station

Name of the parliamentary constituency

7. 25-Sutapatti 8. 36-Silaut Bhimal 9. 53-Paigamerpur Tola Ramnagar. 10. 94-Akhiarpur 11. 97-Aropur

10-Muzaffarpur

.

13-Jainagar

15-Samastipur

.

.

Causes of fresh poll

Ballot papers were stamped in respect of a particular Candidate by the unruly mob and dropped into the ballot boxes or the seals of the ballot boxes were broken

12. 49-Khirhar Kauya M. School 13. 50-Khirhar Kauya M.

Do.

14. 79-Kharghani M. School

Do.

15. 64-Rajpur Middle School, Jaunpur. 16. 65Do.

Do. Do.

Do.

27-Banka .

.

17. 83-L.P. School, Gangati. 18. 86-L.P. School, Manikpur.

Do. Do.

29-Monghyr

.

19. 60-Middle School, Gauripur

Do.

32-Begusarai

.

20. 72-Hazipur

Do.

34-Barh

.

21. 10-Middle School, Village More. 22. 11-Middle School, Village More. 23. 23-U.P. School Burmichak. 24. 84-Lady Teachers Training School, Lakhanchand

Do.

.

Do. Do.

25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

.

.

30. 78-Baisadin

Do.

40-Aurangabad .

.

31. 119-U.P. School, Taredih

Do.

41-Jahanabad

.

32. 35-Dharpur

Do.

42-Nawada

.

33. 61-Khiri

De.

.

34. 4-Poultry Farm Office Building, Tejuna.

Do.

.

38-Bikramganj

43-Gaya (SC)

.

6 666

.

35-Patna

l-Gonwan 2-Gonwan 4-Karai 22-Savarchak 75-Noora

Do.

85

THE POLL

If—Statement showing fresh poll ordered by the Election Commission under section 58(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. (8 cases).

Name of the parliamentary constituency •

4-Gopalganj

5-Siwan

.

.

.

.

7-Maliarajganj . 28-Bhagalpur

.

. .


J. 7-Katgharvva 2. 67-Karmainimohabat

Ballot boxes were removed from the polling station. Do.

. 3 . 30-L.P. School, Jansikri.

Do.

4. 105-Rukundipur Middle School.

Do.

.

.

.

Causes for fresh poll

. 5 . 51-L. P. School, Uchagaon, (South Tola)

Do.

33-NaIanda

6. 48-Senior Basic School, Kornawan.

Do.

34-Barh

7. 95-L.P. School, Bcnipur.

Do.

8. 41-Katari Tahsil, Katchery

Do.

.

42-Kawada

If!—Statement showing adjournment of poll and recommencement of poll on subsequent days ordered by the Election Commission under section 57 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. (10 cases). Name of the parliamentary constituency. 13-Jainagar

.

.

.


1. 44-Rajaun L.P, School.

Causes for adjournment of poll Poll was adjourned due to threat of violence.

31-Khagana

2. 28-Pokhana

Do.

34-Barh

3. 86-Ramsaran Samarak H. E. School (E.W.) Mokameh Ghat. 4. 115-MiddIe School, Keshopur. 5. 7-Ajwan 6. 8-Ajwan

Do.

Do. Do.

7. 12-Bihta 8. 83-Arap Panchavat Bhawan 9. 84-Arap Panchayat Bhawan

Do. Do. Do.

10. 89-Niger

Do.

35-Patna

.

.

36-Shahabad

38-Bikramganj

. TOTAL

3 £ C/72—7

.

52

Do.

86

THE POLL HARYANA {Total number of cases—3)



Causes for fresh adjournment of

poll/ poll

5-Jhajjar

1. P.S. No. 2 (36-Rai Assembly Poll adjourned and reconstituency), commencement of poll directed on a subsequent day under section 57(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, due to illegal stamping of ballot papers by a polling officer in favour of a particular candidate.

6-Gurgaon

2. P.S. No. 62 (53-Sohna Fresh poll directed under section 58(2) of assembly constituency). the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for snatching away of ballot papers and their illegal insertion in ballot box.

7-Mahendragarh

3. P.S. No. 2 in (62-Kanina Fresh poll directed assembly constituency). under section 58(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 on forcible removal and tampering of ballot box.

JAMMU AND

KASHMIR

{Total number of cases—6) Name of ths parliamentary constituency


Causes for fresh poll/ adjournment of poll

5-Udhampur

1. 25-Drung (57-Billawar As- Poll adjourned and recommencement of sembly constituency). poll directed under section 57(2) of the 2. 45-Dambra (56-Basohli asRepresentation of the sembly constituency). People Act, 1951 on account of disturbance of peace resulting from a clash between the two groups of voters at the polling station.

87

THE POLL Name of the parliamentary constituency 3-Anantnag


Causes for fresh poll/ adjournment of poll

3. 23-Malaknag (39-Anantnag Fresh poll directed under section 58 (2) of Assembly Constituency) the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as the ballot box used at the polling station was unlawfully taken away from the polling station by a woman voter under her burqa.

1-Baramulla

4. 14-Madanpore (3-Lolab Assembly constituency)

6-Jammu ,

5. 5-Badwana (60-Samba As- Fresh poll directed as sembly constituency). the ballot boxes used at the polling station were unlawfully taken out of the custody of the presiding officer and tampered with by miscreants.

Fresh poll directed as the ballot box and the packets pertaining to the polling station were not deposited in the District Treasury after the poll but were found missing from the truck in which they were being carried.

6. 32-Bhangdaur (60-Samba Fresh poll directed as some ballot papers Assembly constituency). were snatched away from the custody of the presiding officer.

NAGALAND {one case)


Nagaland .


1-Aghuito (35-Setakha Assembly constituency)


Fresh poll directed as the ballot boxes used at the polling station were found tampered with.

THE POLL ORISSA {One case)


16-Sambalour



81-K.endumuddi Upper Pri- Fresh poll directed as mary School (112-Bhathe presiding officer tli assembly constituency) closed the poll at 4.00 p.m. instead of 5.00 p.m. by mistake.

UTTAR PRADESH (Three cases)

Causes for adjournment of poll



6-Atnroha

1. 20-K.esra (27-Hasanpur As- The poll in these three polling stations was sembly constituency). adjourned and re2. 80-Hajurabad-Garhi commencement of poll 3. 81-Hajurabad-Garhi (399-Barnawa assembly directed on account of disturbance of the constituency) peace.

81-Baghpat

I have given details of these 66 cases of fresh poll or re-poll above to draw the attention of the politicians, the political parties, the members of Parliament and the members of the general public to see for themselves causes which led the Election Commission to direct fresh poll or re-pollin the 66 polling stations. The most glaring of course is the case of Bihar. As i have already pointed out, out of the 66 cases, as many as 52 occurred in Bihar. It may be said that the figure 66 is very insignificant in view the huge number of polling stations set up at the time of the general election in 1971. This number was, as has already been mentioned. 3,42,944. It may further be said that even in Bihar, the total number of polling stations set up in 1971 was more than thirtysix thousand, the actual number being 36,487 and the figure 52 is insignificant out of this huge number. That may be, but still the question which naturally occurs to a right thinking and intelligent man is as to why of all States and Union territories of India, Bihar heads the list in respect of this sordid practice such as removal of ballot boxes, booth capturing, forcible snatching away of ballot papers and so on and so forth. Next to Bihar, comes Jammu and Kashmir. The total number of polling stations where these practices were resorted to was six. This number may not be regarded as high when we remember that the total

THE POLL

s9

number of polling stations set up in this State in 1971 was 3,094. It is true that both in Bihar and Jammu & Kashmir, the number of such cases which occurred previously were larger and that such cases have substantially come down but still the question remains why they should occur at all. Unless public conscience is stirred to its depth against these evil practices and the standard of public and electoral morality is raised, no police arrangement or no legal provisions, however, adequate they may be, can root out these practices from our elections. It, therefore, lies upon the leaders' of all political parties and the Members of Parliament irrespective of their party affiliation to create a health}' public opinion among the masses of the people. As Viscount .Bryce observed in his 'Modern Democracies' — "As the excellence of public opinion — its good sense, its tolerance, its pervasive activity — is the real test of a nation's fitness for self-government, so the power it exerts, being constantly felt as the supreme arbiter irrespective of electoral machinery, is the best guarantee for the smooth and successful working of popular government, and the best safeguard against revolutionary violence." "What docs a nation need to secure that excellence and to enable Opinion to exert its power as Supreme? Besides the conditions already enumerated, the things to be chiefly desired arc : "The presence in the nation of many vigorous minds, constructive and critical, constantly occupied in the public discussion of the current problems of statesmanship. These are the minds already referred to as constituting that first and relatively small class which makes Opinion." "The preponderance in the rest of the nation of men of the second, as compared with men of the third, of the three classes aforesaid, i.e. persons whose sense of civic duty makes them give steady attention to public affairs, and who bring to their consideration a fair judgment and an insight into character which, unseduced by the demagogue, respects uprightness and capacity in the leader who has given proof of these qualities." "In countries like France, the United States, and Britain, men of the first class are never wanting. But a nation needs something more than the intellectual guidance which such men can give. Among them there must also be leaders of firmness which will, face opprobrium and defend causes for the moment unpopular. The chief defect of public opinion is its tendency in times of excitement to overbear opposition and silence the voices it does not wish to hear. Courage is the highest and perhaps the rarest quality among politicians. It is specially needed in democratic countries." — Modern Democracies (Indian Edition brought out by the World Press Private Ltd., Calcutta, 1962) Volume I. pages 181-82.

90

;

THE POLL

Here I may mention that there was only one case of countermanding of the poll under section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 in the Fifth General Election to the Lok Sabha. The poll had to be countermanded in 21-Nagpur parliamentary constituency in the State of Maharashtra on account of the death of one of the contesting candidates, namely, Shri Haridas Damaji Awadi (RPI-Khobragade group) and fresh poll in this parliamentary constituency was taken on the 18th April, 1971 in which Shri Dhote Jambuwantrao Bapurao (Forward Bloc) was declared elected. There were a few cases of countermanding of the poll under the aforesaid section in one assembly constituency in Orissa and three assembly constituencies in West Bengal. It should be recalled that general elections to the Legislative Assemblies of Orissa, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal were also held simultaneously along with the Fifth General Elections to the Lok Sabha in 1971. The poll had to be countermanded in 59-Nayagarh assembly constituency in Orissa on account of the death of Shri Durga Madhab Deo (Swatantra) a contesting candidate. Fresh poll was taken in that constituency on the 2nd May, 1971 in which Shri Achyutananda Mohanty (Utkal Congress) was declared elected. The poll had to be countermanded in three assembly constituencies in West Bengal, namely, 127-Dum Dum assembly constituency, 250-Ukhra (S.C.) assembly constituency, and 129-Shampukur assembly constituency. It will be remembered that at that time a wave of violence of unprecedented magnitude was sweeping over West Bengal. In those fateful months, West Bengal was trembling under a reign of terror, the like of which did not occur in living memory. The candidate Shri Pijush Chandra Ghosh [INC(O)] one of the contesting candidates in 127-Dum Dum assembly constituency was murdered on 5th March, 1971. So also the President of the Forward Bloc, Shri Hemanta Kumar Basu, one of the contesting candidates of 129-Shampukur assembly constituency was murdered in broad day light on 20th February, 1971. He was an old man of 75 years of age and respected by everybody irrespective of party affiliation. After his death, the poll was countermanded and in the fresh election, Shri Ajit Kumar Biswas was nominated as a candidate by the Forward Bloc. Then Shri Debdatta Mondal, a third candidate contesting the assembly election from 250-Ukhra (SC) on the Bangla Congress ticket was also murdered by violent elements on the 17th February, 1971, necessitating the countermand of the poll in this constituency also. Fresh elections were ordered and the date of poll was fixed on the 6th June, 1971. But unfortunately the poll in Shampukur assembly constituency could not be held because Shri Ajit Kumar Biswas who was nominated after the murder of Shri Hemanta Kumar Basu was also murdered on the 28th May, 1971, necessitating a second countermand of the poll in that constituency. Thus in quick succession as many as four contesting candidates were murdered at the time of the Fifth General Election, to the Lok Sabha in 1971. No fresh election however, could be held after Shri Ajit Kumar Biswas's murder because in the meantime the West Bengal Assembly was dissolved by the Governor of West Bengal on the 25tlTjune, 1971.

THE POLL

91

It is because of these extremely abnormal conditions prevailing in West Bengal at the time of the Fifth General Election to the Lok Sabha that there was a strong demand from several quarters including a number of influential newspapers that the elections in West Bengal should be postponed. It is precisely because of this serious situation prevailing in West Bengal that the Commission had to fix the date of poll in West Bengal on the 10th of March, 1971, that is, three-four days after the completion of the poll in other States so that the police force in adequate number might be drafted from those States in West Bengal to guard the polling stations and the polling personnel as well as the electorate. The military was brought in at that time in West Bengal to patrol the streets, lanes and byelanes of Calcutta and also a few days before the poll in the rural areas in the State. But self-seeking persons long after the poll and the declaration of the results of the elections were over raised the allegation that the Commission had intentionally fixed the date of poll in West'Bengal on the 10th of March to carry out its nefarious design of chemical treatment of ballot papers and marking the same by some mechanical process. Can extreme and sordid self-interest go beyond this? It is for the right thinking members of the public to judge.

CHAPTER VIII THE COUNTING OF VOTES AND THE DECLARATION OF RESULTS 1. "Process of Counting—Before beginning to count the votes the returning officer is to open the ballot boxes, count and record the number of papers in each box, so as to check any attempt at fraud, and then mix all the ballot papers together in such a way that it may not be known which papers came out of any particular ballot box (Rule 34)." — Paragraph 42 of the Memorandum issued by the Home Office, White Hall, the 24th July, 1872, giving the principal provisions of the Ballot Act, 1872 and the rules made thereunder (vide British Parliamentary Papers Government Elections, Vol. V, Sessions 1870-98 — Irish University Press Series, Page 407): 2. "Before the returning officer proceeds to count the votes, he shall — (a) in the presence of the counting agents open each ballot box and taking out the ballot papers therein count and record the number thereof and in the presence of the election agents verify each ballot paper account; (b) count such of the postal ballot papers as have been duly returned and record the number counted; and (c) then mix together the whole of the ballot papers mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs." [Rule 46(1) of the Parliamentary Election Rules contained in the second Schedule to the U.K. Representation of the People Act, 1949.] 3. "The returning officer shall open or cause to be opened, simultaneously the ballot box or boxes used at more than one polling station and shall have the total number of ballot papers found in such box or boxes counted and recorded in Part II of Form 16." [Rule 55(1) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961.] "Subject to such general or special directions, if any, as may be given by the Election Commission in this behalf, the ballot papers taken out of all boxes used in a constituency shall be mixed together and then arranged in convenient bundles and scrutinised. . 92

THE COUNTING OF VOTES AND THE DECLARATION OF RESULTS

93

Explanation. — For the purpose of this rule, the expression "constituency" shall, in relation to an election from a parliamentary constituency, mean the assembly constituency comprised therein." [Rule 56(1) and the Explanation thereto of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961.] 4. "And in the organisation for counting votes in a democracy, a fundamental distinction appears between the system of government and the Government of the day. If the Government of the day, that is to say, the particular persons in control, whose actions are to be judged by the voter has power over the counting of votes, no confidence can exist among voters as to the results published. Therefore, there must be some institution of government which carries on the administration independently of the policy of this or that political group in control at the moment Hence the need for a civil service whose members are not removable solely at the will of the Government of the day." — Delisle Burns, Democracy, page 124. With the completion of the poll in the State of West Bengal on the 10th March, 1971, the polling period which started on the 1st March, 1971, came to an end. On that very day i.e., the 10th March, 1971, the counting of votes started everywhere throughout the country except in West Bengal at 8.00 a.m. This arrangement was made with a view to ensuring that the results of counting in any of the States and Union territories might not influence the voting in West Bengal. The Commission received representations from political parties and ex-Members of Parliament also that if the result of the counting in any constituency in any part of India was announced before the close of the poll in West Bengal, it might affect the polling in that State. A little more time in the counting of votes was likely to be taken because of the introduction of the new counting procedure by the mixing of ballot papers, after the initial count, found in the ballot boxes used at all the polling stations within an assembly constituency comprised in the parliamentary constituency concerned. To ensure that any announcement of the indication of the counting or any declaration of the result of any election in any part of the country might not influence the voting trend in West Bengal, requests were made to the All-India Radio and to the Press through Press Information Bureau, not to publish the results of counting or even the trend of counting in any constituency before 5.00 p.m. on the 10th March, 1971. The All-India Radio, the P.I.B. and the Press in general were good enough to comply with this request and I take this opportunity of expressing the Commission's thankfulness to all of them. Serious objections have been taken to the introduction of the new counting procedure under which the ballot papers of all the ballot boxes used at polling stations within an assembly constituency are required to be put in a big bin or receptacle and mixed together before starting the sorting, scrutiny and counting of ballot papers. All sorts of motives were attributed

94


to the Commission for the introduction of this new procedure but shortly after the dissolution of the Lok Sabha the Commission started receiving letters and representations, some times signed and some times anonymous, from the members of the public. The Commission thought carefully over the matter for a number of days and then decided to introduce the new counting procedure which was exactly on the pattern of the counting procedure which has been in vogue in Great Britain for full one century if not more. At the beginning of the Chapter the provisions relating to mixing of ballot papers in Great Britain in 1872, have already been quoted. In great Britain, today also the same counting procedure is followed although there is no casteism or communalism and threat and intimidation of the weaker sections of the community are almost totally absent, at elections in Great Britain today. Still, their Election Law provides for the mixing of ballot papers before they are actually sorted, scrutinised and counted. The object which underlies the system of voting by secret ballot is also the object which impelled the Commission to introduce the new counting procedure^ It is the elimination of intimidation of voters. As Delisle Burns says, — "The vote, under a democratic system, for the election of members of a representative Assembly, is by secret ballot. The voter thus escapes intimidation." ("Democracy" Page 124) But it has been said that this new procedure was introduced with a view to making the mischief of chemical treatment of ballot papers and the mechanical process of voting fool proof because according to those who made this allegation, there was no possibility of reshuffling and rearranging the ballot papers polling stationwise once the mixing had been done. There cannot be anything further from the truth and more perverse than this mischievious allegation. In a subsequent Chapter it will be shown that even after the mixing, without any difficulty, ballot papers can be rearranged polling station-wise, just as in card playing it is not at all difficult to reshuffle the various playing cards in their respective classes. Be that as it may, detailed instructions were prepared in the Commission in very simple language so that the counting staff might easily follow them in counting the votes according to the new procedure. Not only that,, demonstrations of the new procedure were held at various places throughout the country before the returning officers, assistant returning officers and other members of the election staff. As a matter of fact, the credit goes to the election staff throughout the country that the counting was done, by and large, quite correctly and efficiently in accordance with the new procedure throughout the country and practically no complaint was received from any quarter on this account. Even recount was made successfully without difficulty in a number of places. It is no doubt true, however, that a little more time was taken in some counting places in completing the counting because of this new procedure but now the counting staff throughout the country have got used to this new procedure and at the Fifth General Election to the Legislative Assemblies in March, 1972, counting was done within


shorter periods of time. greater detail here.

95

It is not necessary to dilate on this matter in

Counting of votes is done in this country invariably by permanent officers of the Government. On no occasion any temporary employee in the service of the government or any employee of any local authority or any commercial or business undertaking is ever employed for the counting of votes. The counting of votes and the declaration of results throughout the country was over by the 15th March, 1971. The last declaration of the result was in Tamil Nadu from 38-Tiruchendur parliamentary constituency. On the very same day a notification under section 73 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was issued by the Election Commission and upon the issue of this notification, a new House of the People was duly constituted paving the way for the President of India to summon the new House and for the Government to present the budget for the new financial year before the expiry of the current financial year on the 31st March, 1971. On the 15th March, 1971, the Chief Election Commissioner formally sent to the Speaker of the House of the People a list containing the names of all the elected members as notified in the Gazette of India with a covering letter which was as follows :— "ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA No. 308/71 To The Speaker of the House of the People, Parliament House, New Delhi. Sir, The President of India by three notifications, issued respectively on the 27th January, the 1st February and 3rd February, 1971, was pleased to call upon all the 518 parliamentary constituencies to elect members in accordance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and of the rules and orders made thereunder, for the purpose of constituting a new House of the People. The results of the elections in all the parliamentary constituencies except three have been declared by the respective returning officers. The result of the election in the parliamentary constituency comprising the Union territory of Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands, has been declared under the provisions of section 53, and the results of the elections in the rest have been declared under the provisions of section 66, of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In one parliamentary constituency, namely, 21-Nagpur parliamentary constituency in the State of Maharashtra the poll could not be taken on the date originally fixed as the poll had to be countermanded under

96


section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, on account of the death of one of the contesting candidates. In two Parliamentary constituencies, namely, 2-Mandi parliamentary constituency in the State of Himachal Pradesh and 4-Ladakh parliamentary constituency in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, the poll could not be taken on the dates originally fixed on account of weather conditions and therefore the time for completion of the elections had to be extended under the provisions of section 153 of the aforesaid Act. Under section 73 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, there have been notified by the Election Commission today in the Gazette of India the names of the members elected from all the Parliamentary constituencies, except the three mentioned above, and immediately upon such notification the new House of the People has been duly constituted. I have the honour to present to you. Sir, the list containing the names of all the elected members as notified today in the Gazette of India. Yours faithfully, New Delhi; 15th March, 1971

S. P. SEN-VARMA Chief Election Commissioner of India."

As already mentioned the poll in 21-Nagpur parliamentary constituency in the State of Maharashtra could not be taken on the date originally fixed as the poll had to be countermanded under section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, on account of the death of one of the contesting candidates. In two parliamentary constituencies, namely, 2-Mandi parliamentary constituency in the State of Himachal Pradesh and 4-Ladakh parliamentary constituency in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, the poll could not be taken on the dates originally fixed on account of weather conditions and therefore the time for completion of the elections had to be extended under the provisions of section 153 of the aforesaid Act. Barring these three constituencies, elections had been held in the remaining 515 parliamentary constituencies. Of these, in only one constituency, namely, in the parliamentary constituency comprising the Union territory of Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands, there was. as already mentioned, no contest and the only candidate was declared unopposed under section 53 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The following tables show the candidates of various political parties as well as independent candidates who were returned in the Fifth General Election to the Lok Sabha by polling:— (1) (2) (3) (4)

more 40% 30% 20%

than 50% of the votes polled; to 5 0 % of the votes polled; to 40%. of the votes polled; and to 30% of the votes polled.

No candidate was elected who polled 10% to 2 0 % of the total vote? polled.

GENERAL ELECTIONS—1971 HOUSE OF THE PEOPLE Party position —According to percentage of Votes polled by Elected Candidates

d

w o ALL STATES AND UNION TERRITORIES

TOTAL SLATS : 518

c

z %

TNC(J)

INC(N) BJS

SWA

SSP

PSP

CPI

CPM

OTHERS Seat won

IND

TOTAL

Parly

O O

_ "

1

•

3

4

5

M o r e than 5 0 %

.

.

.

262

11

11

5

40%—50%

.

.

.

61

3

9

2

23

2

2

1

30%—40% 20% - 3 0 %

.

.

.

6

10%—20% 0%—10%

.

TOTAL:

.

.

.

JO H rrt fn

""

2

6

1 ..

7

..

16

22

..

10

11

12

13

|

^

-j

2

11

5

40

..

S

354

2

S

13

8

..

3

109

4

6

4

..

2

45

>

1

1

..

1

10

5 c *.

1

..

9

..

1 ..

' 8

o

.. ..

..

..

..

23

25

53

,.

,.

,.

5 g

ri

. . .

.

352

83

2

..

14

518 MO -J

GENERAL ELECTIONS—1971

Jg

HOUSE OF THE PEOPLE Party position—According to percentage of Votes polled by Elected Candidates STATE—ANDHRA PRADESH .-ii-im, mnnn

w

TOTAL SEATS: 41

I I I W H — ^ B IIII

%

« mmm n w -

INC(J)

11

mni^mrMiri---i—rrJi«ujji]imi.j_iiim

INC(N)

HIIIIM • • iiimnin

mi »-iirnfw™-ni—*r—~—

BJS S W A S S P

PSP

MTPMIJW-"""!

CPl

ii

•»iim»i MII •

CPM

i n WIHIIIIIIMIIIIIMWM I I

aim M I I H

OTHERS Seat

••

* H

I N D TOTAL

HI

IIIIIUMIIII •

ffl

Party

O

won

Z ^

^ 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1

35

§

_ M o r e than 5 0 %

.

.

.

40%—50%

.

.

.

30%—40%

.

20%-30%

.

.

.

1 0 % — 2 0 %

.

.

.

0 % — 1 0 %

.

.

.

T O T A L :

.

.

.

' .

.

O

27

1

6

1

1

TPS

^

o

3

TPS

3

^ S

1

TPS

3

S

'

w

%% M H

W 2

8

..

..

..

..

..

1

1

1

0T P S

1

4

1

p

-2

I

GENERAL FXECTIONS—1971 HOUSE OF THE PEOPLE Party position—According to percentage of Votes polled by Elected Candidates STATE—ASSAM

TOTAL SEATS : 14

%

INC(J)

INC(N)

BJS

SWA

SSP

PSP

CPI

CPM

OTHERS Seat won

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

IND

§j

TOTAL

O

Party

11

H ^ 12

13

o° T)

More than 5 0 %

.

.

.

11

40%-50%

.

.

.

2

1

APHLC

12 2

30%—40%

w ° ^

w

w z

o 20%-30% 10%—20%

w

/o— i U /o

m

H

^__^^^_^^^^_

^^_^__

o -

TOTAL :

.

.

13

1

APHLC

— --

14

f-*

% > O


— ©

o HOUSE OF THE PEOPLE Party position—According

to percentage of Voles polled by Elected Candidates

STATE—BIHAR

TOTAL SEATS : 53 ..

%

.

1NC(J) INC(N)

1

2

3 1

More than 50%

.

.

.

17

40%—50% 30%—40%

. .

. .

. .

12 7

20%—30%

.

.

.

3

2

_

H

BJS

4

SWA

5

SSP

PSP

CPI

6

7

8

CPM

9

OTHERS Seat Party won 10

11

IND

12

2 1 1

1

2 1

1

JKP j

1

TOTAL

ta O §

13

o O

20

«

16

r H M w

13

4

O

z

'

GENERAL ELECTIONS—1971 w

HOUSE OF THF. PEOPLE

m

-

_O f

'

Party position—According to percentage of Votes Polled by Elected Candidates STATE-GUJARAT

OC

._ .

%

INC(.I) INC(N) BJS

TOTAL SEATS : 24

%

FND TOTAL

8 c 2j

-

SWA

SSP .

PSP

CP1

CPM

OTHERS Seat

Party

Z O

won

_

..

1

2

3

More than 5 0 %

.

.

.

8

9

40%—50%

.

.

.

3

2

4

5

6

7

___

8

1

9

10

11

12

13

o °

18

" 5

'

5

r

"

H >

30%—40%

. • .

1

M

]

20%—30% 10%—20%

t=

0%—10% T O T A L :

g H

- .

.

.

1 1

' '

° 1 1

•

2

2

_

4

? =

5

o


g

HOUSE OF THE PEOPLE Party position—Aceerding

to percentage of Votes polled by Elected

Candidates

STATE—HARYAN4

TOTAL SEATS : 9

%

INC(J) INC(N)

BJS

SWA

SSP

PSP

CPI

CPM

OTHERS

IND

H w

TOTAL

n Seat won 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 ,

More than 5 0 %

.

% - 5 3 %

. .

. .

9

Party

10

11

-—.__

,

§ 2 12

5 .

2

1

13

O Q

m

1

V H P

5

§

5

GENERAL ELECTIONS—1971 HOUSE OF THE PEOPLE Party position—According


Candidates.

STATE—TAMIL NADU

TOTAL SEATS : 39

o' O § 2 g

. INC(J) INC(N) BJS

%

SWA

SSP

PSP

CPI

CPM

OTHERS Seat

' —

—

-

—

"

1

"

-

-

2

3

9

1

_

4

5

6

7

TOTAL

Party

won

'

-

1ND

"

-

-

•

-

8

—

-

9

O

"

—

10

11

3

22 1

D M K FBL

1

1

DMK

-

-

-

12

"

.

40%—50%

.

.

. . -

.

.

.

3 0 % — 4 0 % 2 0 % — 3 0 %

.

.

-

•

•

o

"

13

T>

36 3

| ™ r >

: More than 5 0 %

•

§

, TOTAL

BKD

73

1

4

o w

.

4

1

BKD

2

85

£ 50

"

"

^

'

"

~

"

~

~

"

" •

>

s z

GENERAL ELECTIONS—1971 HOUSE OF THE PEOPLE Party position—According to percentage of Votes polled by Elected Candidates. STATE—WEST BENGAL

TOTAL SEATS : 40 INC(J) INC(N) BJS

SWA

SSP

PSP

CPI

CPM

OTHERS

0/ /»

H

IND

TOTAL

" ^

,

o

Seat Party won 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

C H

11

12

13

° O O

_____

„

.

..,.

More than 5 0 % .

.

.

3

40%—50%

.

.

.

6

30%—40%

.

.

.

3

20%—30%

__^_

:

__^

.

1

2 1

,

..

_._

„______.__ ....

7

10

19

5

1

_^__.

4

1

1 1

B A C R S P

1

„

hrt >TJ

go C

«

11 3

w ^ °

10%-20%

.

.

.

g

0 % - 1 0 %

.

.

.

g o

.

.

.

,

:

TOTAL

_ -

____

t

,

w

|

aj-

13

1

.

.

3

2 0

,

2

B A C

RSP

1

_

4 0

j»

g ^


£

HOUSE OF THE PEOPLE Party position—According to percentage of Votes polled by Elected Candidates. STATE—UNION TERRITORIES

TOTAL SEATS : 18

_

_ ._

-

.,.-.-.

.. -

~

-

_ -

.._

..... -

.

...

...

H

..

3^

-

INC(J) INCW) BJS

%

_

SWA

SSP

PSP

CPI

•

CPM

OTHERS

1ND TOTAL

Seat Par'.y

n

O 2

won 1

2

More than 5 0 %

.

.

.

11

40%-50%

.

.

.

1

30%—40%

.

.

.

2

20%—30%

.

.

.

1

10%—20%

.

.

.

0%—10%

.

.

.

.

.

.

TOTAJ.

_

_

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

S O 10

11

1

U G S

12

13

12 a o

2

3 •

'

o

2

c ^

1 -

5 § ° w

g o 1 5

2

1

U G S

18

%

>

-

9


117

From the above Tables it will appear that out of the total number of elected candidates, namely, 518, as many as 354 were elected by polling more than 50% of the votes. Of the total number of candidates elected on the tickets of the Indian National Congress led by Shri Jagjivan Ram, namely, 352, 262 obtained more than 50% of the votes, 61 obtained votes between 40%>—50%, 23 candidates obtained votes between 30%—40% and 6 candidates obtained votes between 20%—30%. Of the total number of candidates elected on the tickets of the Indian National Congress led by Shri Nijalingappa, 11 candidates obtained votes more than 50%, 3 candidates obtained votes between 40%—50%, 2 candidates obtained votes between 30%—40%. Of the total number of candidates elected belonging to the Bhartiya Jan Sangh, namely, 22, 11 obtained more than 50% votes, 9 obtained votes between 40%—50% -and 2 obtained votes between 30%—40%. Of the 8 elected candidates 1 belonging to the Swatantra jparty, 5 obtained more than 50% of the votes, 2 obtained votes between 40%—50% and one obtained votes between 30%—40%. Of the 3 S.S.P. candidates elected, one obtained more than 50% of the votes, one obtained votes between 30%—40% and one obtained votes between 20%—30%. Each of the two candidates elected on the P.S.P tickets obtained votes between 40%—50%. Of the 23 C.P.I, candidates elected, 11 polled more than 50% of the votes. 8 obtained votes between 40%—50% and 4 obtained votes between 30%—40%. Of the 25 C.P.M. candidates elected, 5 obtained rrjpre than 50% of the votes, 13 obtained votes between 40%—50%, 6"obtained votes between 30%—40% and one obtained votes between 20%—30%. Of the 53 candidates elected on the tickets of other parties, 40 obtained more than 50% of the votes, 8 obtained votes between 40%—50%, 4 obtained votes between 30%—40% and one obtained votes between 20%—30%. Of the 14 Independent candidates, 8 obtrained more than 50% of the votes, 3 obtained votes between 40% — 50%, 2 obtained votes between 30%—40% and one obtained votes between 20%—30%. Thus no candidate was elected by obtaining votes between 10%—20% or Jess. Of the total number of 518 elected candidates, 354 obtained more than 50 per cent of the votes polled, 109 obtained votes between 40%—50%, 45 obtained votes between 30%—40% and only 10 obtained votes between 20%—30%. The following short statement shows the total number of electors, total number of votes polled, total number of valid votes polled, votes rejected, percentage of votes polled and the percentage of votes rejected at the Fifth General Election to the Lok Sabha in 1971;— 1971-Lok Sabha General Election Total No. of electors

Total No. of Total No. of Votes rejecvotes polled valid votes pol- ted led

27,43,33,925 3 EC/72—9.

15,14,93,463

14,65,78,675

49,19,738

Percentage of Percentage of votes polled votes rejected

55.22

3.24

118


The percentage of votes rejected is gradually coming down as shown below:— Percentage of votes rejected 1. Third General Election to Lok Sabha, 1962 2. Fourth General Election to Lok Sabha, 1967 3. Fifth General Election to Lok Sabha, 1971

3.94 4.68 3.24

The break up State and Union territory-wise is shown below: — P E R C E N T A G E O F VOTES R E J E C T E D IN T H E LAST T H R E E ELECTIONS

A.

1962

1967

1971

3.21 4.30 4.24 4.33 2.07 5.68 3.24 4.88 4.66

3.89 5.37 4.50 4.85 4.18 3.38 3.78 5.89 3.04 5.07 4.76

.

4.88 3.46 4.11 4.24 3.04 3.9! 0.06

5.95 4.55 3.96 5.15 3.80 4.12 2.97

(U.T.) (U.T.)

2.59 4.74 1.92 4.24 2.48 4.29 0.98 5.89 3.72 3.32 3.43 0.07 4.92 2.06 3.20 2.55 4.31 3.08 2.16

.

2.30

2.61

(U.T.)

3.65

States 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

B.

GENERAL

A n d h r a Pradesh Assam . . . . Bihar Gujarat . . . Haryana . . . . j a m m u & Kashmir Kerala M a d h y a Pradesh . . . Tamil N a d u . . . Maharashtra . . . Mysore . . . . Nagaland . . . . Orissa . . . . Punjab Rajasthan . . . . Uttar Pradesh . . . West Bengal . . . H i m a c h a l Pradesh Manipur . . . . Meghalsya Tripura . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

Union territories 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

A n d a m a n & N i c o b a r Islands Chandigarh . D a d r a N a g a r Haveli G o a , D a m a n & Diu Laccadive, Minicoy a n d Admindivi Islands 6. Delhi 7. Pondicherry . . . . 8. M i z o r a m . . . . . 9. A r u n a c h a l P r a d e s h All-India Percentage. *UC—Uncontested

3.32

3.94

1.35 8.19 2.89

0.01 1.52 5.99 3.06

0.76 4.24 2.05

U.C.* 1.26 0.17 3.24


119

From the above table it appears that the largest percentage of rejected votes has all along been in the State of Madhya Pradesh. This is understandable because a substantial segment of the population consists of tribal population most of whom are illiterate. Next in order come Orissa, Assam and Gujarat. In West Bengal the percentage in 1971(4.31%) is larger than the percentage in 1962 (3.94%) and in 1967 (3.80%). West Bengal is a highly politically conscious State. The reason for the rise in the percentage of rejected voters in 1971 may be due to a large extent to the reign of terror prevailing in West Bengal at the time of the 1971 general election to the Lok Sabha and the fear psychosis which over took the people of West Bengal completely and perhaps clouded their intelligent judgment at the time of voting. It is not at all unlikely that they went to the polling stations and hurriedly put some voting mark on the ballot paper and ran away quickly for their homes. The lowest percentage of rejected votes in 1971 was in Nagaland (0.07%) and Kerala (0.98%). The political consciousness is highly developed and percentage of literacy is very high both in Nagaland and Kerala and this explains the very small percentage of rejected votes in these two States. One feature should be noted in this connection. The percentage of rejected votes in most of the States and territories was higher in 1967 than not only in 1971 but also in 1962. The following statement shows in detail the percentage of men and women voters. This seems to be important as on no previous occasion has any such detailed statement relating to the percentage of men and women voters been published:—

120


Statement showing the percentage of votes polled by men and women 1962 SI. Name of State/Union TerriNo. tory

1

2

1. A n d h r a P r a d e s h . . . 2. A s s a m . . 3. B i h a r 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Gujarat . . Haryana . . Jammu and Kashmir Kerala . . Madhya Pradesh

9. Tamil Nadu 10. Maharashtra 11. M y s o r e

.

. . .

. . .

. .

.

.

.

', of votes polled by men voters to men electors

by women voters to women electors

3

4

by total voters to total electors 5

60.34 37.23 32.86 52.02

64.72 45.09 44.88 57.96

— —

— —

— —

74.10 60.36 73.07 66.02 65.18

67.08 28.90 64.55 54.29 53.07

70.55 44.79 68.77 60.43 59.30

—

—

13.21 58.13 41.35 39.46 47.62 22.04 64.44

23.56 62.37 52.44 50.35 55.75 33.60 65.34

. . . . — Nagaland . . . . Orissa . . . . 33.07 Punjab . . . . 65.90 Rajasthan . . . . 62.63 59.42 Uttar Pradesh . West Bengal 61.98 Himachal Pradesh 43.68 Manipur . . . . 66.27 — Meghalaya Tripura . . . . 73.33 — A n d a m a n & Nicobar Islands —. Chandigarh — Dadra & Nagar Haveli — Goa, Daman and D i u Laccadive, Minicoy a n d Amindivi Islands —• 27. D e l h i . . . . 65.82 — 28. P o n d i c h e r r y 29. M i z o r a m . . . . . —

62.05

—

—

61.77 —.

67.95

— —

—.'

by men voters to total electors 6

69.03 51.50 55.39 63.39

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

TOTAL:

% of votes polled

— — — —

34. 28. 29. 33.

by women voters to total electors 7

81 35 56 13 —

29.91 16.74 15.32 24.83

—.

.— 33.93 14.3i 32.53 25.96 25.78

36. 62 30. 48

36. 24 34. 47 33. 52 — 17. 24 36. .02 32. 60 32 .43 35 .11 23 .35 32 .61 — 39 .24 — — — —

—

—

6.32 26.35 19.84 17.92 20.64 10.25 32.73 —

28.72 — — — —

71.71

68.29 — —

38 .14 — —

13.15

— —

46.63

54.76

32 .68

22.08

— —


121

voters etc. in the last three General Elections to the House of the People 1967 % of votes polled by men voters to men electors

8

72.08 66.50 61.28 69.19 75.41 57.25 77.13 64.35 79.23 68.82 67.36

1971 % of votes polled

by wo- by total men vo- voters ters to to total women electors electors

% of votes polled

by men by wovoters men to total voters electors to total electors

9

10

11

12

65.26 50.83 40.74 58.17 69.44 52.08 74.20

68.67 59.28 51.53 63.76 72.62 55.16 75.64 53.47 76.56 64.75 62.95

36.00 35.86 32.21 35.12 40.05 34.07 37.98 32.32 39.28 35.38 34.38

32.67 23.42 19.32 28.64 32.57 21.09 37.66 21.15 37.28 29.37 28.57

42 AS

73.94 60.49 58.34

by men voters to men electors 13

64.39 58.37 60.00 60.61 67.78 67.61 65.77 58.24 74.48 63.54 61.73 56.82 51.85 63.36 60.07 52.23 64.79 48.44 53.37

by women voters to women electors 14

54.71 41.57 37.01 50.19 60.48 46.59 63.30 37.59 69.17 56.12 52.71 50.37 33.74 55.87 47.50 38.84 58.74 33.38 43.55

% of votes polled by total by men by wovoters voters men to total to total voters electors electors to total electors 15

59.57 50.69 49.10 55.59 64.34 58.12 64.53 48 00 71.82 59.94 57.42 53.77 43.20 59.89 54.04 46.10 62.16 41.18 48.35

16

17

32.31 27.26 31.67 19.02 31.57 17.53 30.86 24.63 35.94 28.40 37.09 21.03 32.69 31.84 29.36 18.64 37.21 34.61 32.71 27.23 32.19 25.28 29.55 23.82 27.07 16.13 34.05 25.84 31.27 22.77 28.31 17.79 36.67 25.49 25.10 16.18 26.11 22,24

—

—

—

—

—

53.56 73.44 64.96 59.27 70.88 57.97 68.73

33.05 68.43 51.02 48.96 60.15 44.05 65.80

43.70 71.14 58.27 54.51 66.03 51.20 67.23

27.81 39.64 33.79 31.93 38.85 29.77 33.75

15.89 31.50 24.48 22.58 27.18 21.43 33.48

76.45 79.22 65.42 80.05 69.35 78.27

72.98 74.84 76.77 78.45 65.28 65.36 76.55 78.29 67.42 68.37 86.16 82.02

41.09 33.75 54.51 23.94 38.67 26.69 39.68 38.61 33.97 34.40 41.04 40.98

65.00 55.91 60.84 35.29 25.55 69.72 72.33 70.55 47.55 23.00 62.79 63.11 62.92 36.84 26.08 71.46 68.06 69.78 36.25 33.53 57.01 54.91 55.92 27.73 28.19 (UNCONTESTED)

68 .91 76 .01

70 .25 73 .72

69.49 74.85

39 .00 37 .41

30.49 37.44

66 .81 71 .93

63.29 68.28

65. 18 70. 10

36.10 35.83

29 .08 34 .27

66 .73

55 .48

61.33

34 .72

26.61

61 .00

49.15

55. 35

31.94

23 .41

PART-II FIFTH GENERAL ELECTIONS TO THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES—1972

123

CHAPTER IX GENERAL ELECTIONS TO THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES 1. "In framing the constitution, care should be taken to avoid the mistakes and weaknesses of the United States' system, the primary error of which was the reservation to the different States of all powers not delegated to the Central Government. We must reverse this process by establishing a strong central Government, to which shall belong all powers not specially conferred on the provinces." —Pope, Memoirs of Sir Johan A. Macdonald, Vol. I, page 269, quoted in Dawson's "The Governemnt of Canada" (Fourth Edition), page 3d. 2. "Every Legislative Assembly of every State, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer and the expiration of the said period of five years shall operate as a dissolution of the Assembly." —Article 172(1) of the Constitution. , 3. "The Governor may from time to time (b) dissolve the Legislative Assembly." —Article 174(2) of the Constitution. 4. "If the President on receipt of a report from the Governor of a State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by Proclamation—• (a) assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State and all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by the Governor or any body or authority in the State other than the Legislature of the State; (b) declare that the powers of the Legislature of the State shall be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament;" —Article 356(1) of the Constitution. The Fifth General Elections to the Legislative Assemblies of 18 States and Union territories and the Metropolitan Council of Delhi were held during the first quarter of this year, i.e., 1972. The States which went to the polls for constituting new Legislative Assemblies are— 1. Andhra Pradesh 2. Assam 125

126

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

GENERAL ELECTIONS TO THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES

Bihar Gujarat Haryana Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Mysore Punjab Rajasthan West Bengal Jammu & Kashmir Himachal Pradesh Meghalaya Manipur, and Tripura.

Of these 16 States, President's rule under article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the States of Bihar, Gujarat, Mysore, Punjab, West Bengal, Manipur and Tripura. Though the President's rule in these States might have been continued for a longer period, it was decided by the Central Government that general elections to constitute new Legislative Assemblies in these States should be held simultaneously with the general elections to other States Legislative Assemblies whose normal life of five years was going to expire within a short time and the Election Commission received requests from the Central Government that the Commission should make arrangements for holding general elections in these States accordingly. There appears to be an impression in some quarters that when as a result of Presidential rule imposed in a State under article 356, its Legislative Assembly is dissolved, the Election Commission can at any time hold a general election for constituting a new Legislative Assembly. This is quite wrong for the following reasons. In the first place, a Proclamation under article 356 may be continued for a maximum period of three years with six monthly approval by the Houses of Parliament; and the Government may decide that it should be continued for the maximum period because it may be of the opinion that the situation which necessitated the issue of the Proclamation still continues in the State. And this opinion of the Central Government is final; it cannot be agitated in any forum except on the floor of the Houses of Parliament. This is why six monthly approval of the Proclamation by Parliament is necessary. In the second place, if the Election Commission decides in a strong-headed and perverse manner that a general election should be held inspite of Government's opinion to the contrary, the Commission will not be in a position TO give effect to such decision. The Governor of the State will not accept such perverse decision of the Commission; he will not accept the recommendation of the Commission under section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and will not issue the writ for the general election under that section. The Government will not at all cooperate with the

GENERAL ELECTIONS TO THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES

127

Commission and will not provide the necessary polling personnel for conducting the poll and the necessary police personnel for maintaining law and order during the election. The Election Commission was never intended by the framers of the Constitution to be such an autocratic and perverse authority. It must not be forgotten that our Constitution is a Constitution of checks and balances so that no authority or agency can act in utter disregard of other authorities and agencies. In the third place, suppose a general election is held against the will of the Central Government, then, in such a case, the new Legislative Assembly which has been constituted will be ineffective because the powers of the Legislature of the State are exercisable by or under the authority of the Parliament while the Proclamation under article 356 is in operation. Therefore, the holding of a general election and the constitution of the new Legislative Assembly would hardly be of any practical utility. The Union territories in which general elections were held to constitute their new Legislative Assemblies are Union territory of Goa, Daman and Diu and the new Union territory of Mizoram where the general election was held a little later than the general elections in the other 18 States and Union territories. Whereas the general dections in the 18 States and Union territories were completed by the second week of March, 1972, the general election in the new Union territory of Mizoram to constitute the first Legislative Assembly of that Union territory was completed by about the middle of April, 1972. The general election to the Metropolitan Council of the Union territory of Delhi was held simultaneously with the general elections to the Legislative Assemblies of the States and Union territories mentioned above. No general elections to constitute new Legislative Assemblies were held in the States of Kerala, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and Nagaland. As the existing Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh was constituted by a general election held in the beginning of 1969, and as there was no President's rule, that Legislative Assembly is still functioning and no general election was necessary in the beginning of 1972. The general election to constitute the existing Legislative Assembly of Kerala was held in September, 1970 and it is still functioning. The general elections to constitute the existing Legislative Assemblies of Orissa and Tamil Nadu were held simultaneously with the Fifth General Election to the Lok Sabha in 1971. At that time a general election was held to constitute a new Legislative Assembly for West Bengal but within a few months after the due constitution of the West Bengal Assembly President's rule was clamped in that State and therefore another general election was held in the beginning of 1972. No general election was held in the State of Nagaland to constitute a new Legislative Assembly as the existing Assembly which is now functioning in Nagaland was constituted by a general election held in March, 1969. Although the normal duration of five years of the Legislative Assembly of Haryana which was constituted by the general election held in May, 1968, would have expired only some time in June, 1973, still the Government of Haryana decided to dissolve the Legislative Assembly and go in for a fresh general election together with the general elections in the other States and Union territories mentioned above.

2

Above 50% 40%—50%

.,

..

,,

.

..

30%—40% 20%—30%

.

.

.

.

.

.

3

4

5

g Z

|

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

H O a

99

5

..

..

...

..

..

..

..

5

109

29

7

1

..

..

..

..

..

..

2

39

r

12

2

1

..

..

1

16

Q

..

2

1

1

A

t

10%—20%

§

0%-10%

m

> TOTAL

.

140

16

3

..

..

1

..

..

..

8

168

S

r1 M

GENERAL

ELECTIONS

TO THE STATE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY—1972 Party position—According to percentage of Votes polled by Elected Candidates

O

State—HARYANA

Total Seats : 81 _

INC

NCO

BJS

SWA

__

SP

CPI

.

1

2

3

4

5

.

6

_

CPM

7

Others

Seat Won

Party

8

9

_

w jo > ^

_

IND

TOTAL

w r< tn

£j 5 "z, 10

11

12

H

,

Above 50%

31

4

40%-50%

15

5

30%—40%

6

20%—30%

O

..

..

..

1

..

..

2

VHP

2

39

g

1

BAS

6

29

^

1

VHP

3 ..

g 3

1

,..

..

12

j£

1

g w

10%—20% 0 °/ 1 n °/

en W

TOTAL •

:

'

"*"

•"•

I

.

.

,

.

52

12

2 •

**Vishal Haryana Party Bharatiya Arya Sabha

4 •

— -

•

•

-

**

11

81

a P

5

**VHP-3 BAS-1 ON

GENERAL ELECTIONS i—*

o\ *°

TO THE STATE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY—I972. Party position—According to percentage of Votes polled by Elected candidates State—HIMACHAL PRADESH %

INC

NCO

BJS

SWA

,

SP

CPI

CPM

,

1

2 3

4

TOTAL SEATS : 68 OTHERS I N D TOTAL ' Seat Party Won

____._- __

5 6 7

,

8 9

10

,

Above 50% 40%-50%

•

__ _____

11

„

38

—

1

—

—

—

1

10

-

3

—

—

—

—

-

—

—

30%-40%

3—

20%-30%

2

1 —

_

—

—

_

—

_

_

_

—

1 i

12

§ >o r M t" 1

8 H-3

.,.,

LRP

3

44

§

—

4

17

^

_

LRP

—

5

—

© 2g

10%-20%

r
W

g 03 ' •

.

;

•

•

•

. •

'

.

-

•

•

_

.

'

.

•

•

.

•

•

•

'

•

•

-

•

5 O

GENERAL ELECTIONS TO THE STATE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY—1972.

a

Party position—According to percentage of Votes polled by Elected Candidates

H

State—MEGHALAYA %

.

INC

NCO

BJS

SWA

SP

CPI

CPM

TOTAL SEATS : 60

g

IND TOTAL

w

OTHERS Seat Won

Party

n 2

s 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

w

H

Above 50% 40%—50%

.

.

.

.

• .

.

.

.

.

.

30%—40% 20%—30%

.

.

.

.

5

..

..

23

AHL

11

39

2

..

..

6

AHL

2

10

W

..

..

3

AHL

6

10

g

1

£

1

..

..

. . . .

1

..

..

..

..

10%-20%

0 % — 1 0 %

|

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

W i

I-I

TOTAL :

g

.

.

.

;

**AU Party Hill Leader's Conference.

9

..

..

32 **AHL :

19

60

3> 1

g ^

>~^ w en

ON

GENERAL ELECTIONS

•£ GO

TO THE STATE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY—1972. Party position—According to percentage of Votes polled by Elected Candidates State -MYSORE

TOTAL SEATS: 216

__ %

INC

:

.

NCO

BJS

. SWA

SP

CPI

CPM

OTHERS Seat

,

_ 2 ,

Above 50% 40%—50%

3

.

.

.

.

.

.

2 6

30%—40%

6

..

..

1

6

..

..

1

.

.

.

.

8

_

_

_

_

_

2

__ ..

.. _

..

1 _

JPP

_

2 r* w

g o

_

10

, ..

1 _

.

9 .

1

_ .

7 ,

18

6

20%—30% 1 0 % — 2 0 %

5

, 133

.

4

,

g

IND TOTAL

Party

Won

1

g

11 __

12

9

163

§ °

7

4 0

jjj

3

12

r,

i

1

I

.

>

0%-10%

§ to

TOTAL :

165 .

2

4

..

..

3

3

..

1

**JPP

20

^ __^ •

•

•

& ffi

**Janata Paksha Party. • •

216J

§ '

-

£

S3

GENERAL ELECTIONS TO THE STATE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY—1972. Party position—According

to percentage of Votes polled by Elected Candidates

^

State—PUNJAB —

TOTAL SEATS : 104

•

—

%

INC

•——

•

NCO

BJS

SWA

SP

CPI

CPM

g

OTHERS Seat

1ND TOTAL

Party

g

,

:

1

2

3

H

4

5

6

7 .

Above 50%

47

..

40%— 50%

17

• ..

30%—40%

2

..

..

. . . . .

8

9

10

11

12

§

.

-« w %n

a\

GENERAL ELECTIONS

~ o

TO THE STATE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY—1972. Party position—According


Candidates

State—RAJASTHAN

TOTAL SEATS : 184 INC

NCO

BJS

SWA

SP

CPI

CPM

OTHERS Seat Won

,

1

,

2

3

___

4

5

6

7

105

40%—50% 30%—40%'

.

.

.

.

.

.

20%—30%

..

8

.

.

.

.

.

o % — 1 0 %

.

.

.

.

.

p5

Party

r< .

9

10

11

•

4

2

1

..

..

. . 6 ., '..

30

1

5

5

1

3

..

..

9

..

2

2

1

..

..

..

12

••'•

t"1

O

•

1

1

1 0 % - 2 0 %

o

TOTAL

„_____„

•—

Above 50%

IND

*

O

119

g

4

49

g

1

15

H

1

w . 5

;

a

^TOTAL:

145

1

8

11

4

4

.

.

.

.

...11

184

3

w CO

•

W ""g D3 f

E3

GENERAL ELECTIONS TO THE STATE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY—1972. .

.

•

-

,

-

.

.

.

.

.

" '""'•""

"

•

a


Eg

State—TRIPURA

TOTAL SEATS : 60 INC

,

NCO

BJS

SWA

SP

CPI

CPM

OTHERS

IND

TOTAL

.

I

__^

TOTAL

41

..

^

..

..

..

1

-

-

.

-

- .

16

..

I ..

2

60

§ 03

| ,

o

18

io%-2o%

• •

12

19

: •* ;-'

-

11

.

.

•

10

.

.

•

9

.

30%—40%

•

8

.

2o%-3o%

•

a o « g

1

•

a £ r

•

.

.

.

.

^

m

_n

t—'

'

GENERAL ELECTIONS

-j

TO THE STATE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY—1972 Party position—According to percentage of Votes polled by Elected Candidates

o State—WEST BENGAL INC

NCO

BJS

SWA

SP

_ _______

CPM

_________

1

2 ,

i

CPI

,

.

3

4

5

6

7

.

8

|

TOTAL SEATS : 280 OTHERS IND TOTAL

§ >

Seat Party Won

5 w

9

°

10

|

11

12

O jyj

|

H

Above 50% 40%—50% 30%—40% 20%-30% 1 0 % - 2 0 % 0%—10% TOTAL

. .^.

________

.

.

.

.

.

199 16 1

1 1 —

—

—

—

_

— — _

31 3

8 5

WPI RSP IGL SUC IGL

1 4

241 34

1

1 3 1 1 1

1

5

° S w f, g Sj > Z

1

3 5

14

7

**

6

2 8 0

|

.

,

' .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

2 1 6

2

___^___ _ .

w ______ **Workers Party of India Revolutionary Socialist Party AU India Gorakha League Socialist Unity Centre of India .

.

___ .

**WPI—1 RSP—3 IGL—2 . SUC—1 7

______—_

g

rj 3 -

(n

GENERAL ELECTIONS TO THE

METROPOLITAN COUNCIL—1972


o

a

State—DELHI

TOTAL SEATS : 56 i

INC

§ jo >

.

NCO

BJS

SWA

SP

CPI

CPM

OTHERS

IND

TOTAL

y Seat Won

Paity

.

°

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Above 50%

37

—

4

-

1

_

_

3

1

—

—

—

-

1

-

-

-

9

10

11

12

.

w

g 40%—50%

.

30%—40%

-

.

.

'

.

.

. .

. '

. .

.

20%—30%

4

_

-

_

_

2

_

_

i

_

_

—

— .

-

_ _ 1 -

i

4 _

4 6

MUL

—

5

—

—

1

10%-20%

g ^ | r ti

0%—10% —

« f n H

. .

. —

.

.

W

. 44

**Indian Union Muslim League.

2

5

3

1

**MUL

1

56

v> | S X/i

*—*

—i

GENERAL ELECTIONS

-

TO THE STATE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY—1972 Party Position — According to percentage oj'Wotes polled by Elected Candidates

*•

State—GOA, DAMAN & DIU. %

INC

NCO

BJS

SWA

SP

CPI

.

TOTAL SEATS 30 OTHERS IND TOTAL

CPM

i

"1 •••

2

3

-

:

4

5

•

1

.

20%-30%

.

.

.

.

10%—20% . o%—10%

6

Seat Won

7

8

.

. v

.

.....--

.

.

•-,

- ,

.

.

—

.

_

_ _ — -

. . . . . . . .

.

_

.

_ _

— .

..

9

w

Party

§ g

• 10

11

12

_

_ _ —

_

_ _ ' —

_

_ — -

_ —

w

13 10 4 1

MAG UGS MAG MAG

1 — •—

25

£j 3 «> g

4 1

'.

•

.

.

„

..

-

Above 50% 40%—50% 30%—40%

-

o

H

g .

-.

1-

•

w

TOTAL :

1

** Maharashtrawadi Gomantak United Goans (Sequel ia G r o u p ) — —

-

.

28

MAG-18 •—USG-10

28

**

1

30

p

^ w

I s CO f

w C/5

GENERAL ELECTIONS TO THE STATE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY—1972. Party position—According to percentage of Votes polled by Elected Condidates

§ g £ > £

State—MIZORAM TOTAL SEATS : 30 %

'

INC

NCO

BJS

SWA

SP

CPI

CPM

OTHERS

IND

TOTAL

fi

Seat Won 1 Above 50% .

.

.

.

.

.

40%—50%

30%-40% 20%—30% 10%-20% 0%—10%

. . . .

. .

.

. .

. .

2

3

2

—

3

_

1 —

—

4

5 —

_

—

6

_

_

7 _

8

_

9

_

Party

. _

£ H

10

11

12

§

5

7

g

_

_

• _

_

_

_

_

10

13

H

_ _

_ _ _

_

_ _

_ _

__ _

6

7

g

•

_

3

. TOTAL :

.__

.

.

.

.

6

—

—

_

3

'

_

_

_

__ _

_

_

24

3

r

g ' £ ^ O

. § a

Andhra Pradesh . Assam Bihar . . . . Gujaiat . . . Haryana Himachal Pradesh . Jammu & Kashmir . Kerala . . . Madhya Pradesh . Maharashtra . . Mysore . . Orissa . . . Punjab . . . Tamil Nadu . . Rajasthan . . Uttar Pradesh . . West Bengal

.

2

1

0 .

2 2

. . . . .

1 1 .

6

.

5

.

. . . .

.

6 2 4 3

2 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2 1 1 .. 2

.. .. 7 2 2 .. 1 1 6 3 5 1 3 1

.. .. 1 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . ..

.. ..

5 1

.. . . _

.

.. .. 2 .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . 1

.. .. 3 .. 1 .. .

.. 4 1 .. 1

.. .. .. .. 1 .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

2 .._

.. ._. _

.

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2 .. .. ..

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

1 _ _..

.. ._.

.. •• 3 ..

.

. . .. . 1 .. 1

. . ^

6 A ^_

1 _3_ _

1 .._ H—*

Name of State/ Union territory

Election Petitions in the High Court • • Filed WithDisElection drawn missed set aside

1

2

A & N Islands . . . Chandigarh . . . Dadra & Nagar Haveli . Delhi . . . . Goa, Daman & Diu . L. M. & A Islands . Manipur . . . . Pondicherry . . Tripura . . . . TOTAL :

.

.

3

.. .. 3 1 .. .. .. ..

-

.

4

5

Election appeals in the Supreme Court Pe.iding

Filed

Withdrawn

6

Dismissed

1

Election set aside

2

Pending

3

4

..

..

..

..

..

..

•.

.

.. . .. .. .. .. ..

.. 3 .. .. .. .. ..

.. .. .. .. .. .. ..

.. .. 1 .. .. .. ..

.. 2 .. .. .. .. ..

.. .. .. .. .. .. . .

•. 1 .. .. .. .. .

.• .. •• .. .. .. ..

8

41

1

4

..

58

8

14

1

.

o

5 .

.

. •• O 1 * .. J2 -o .. " ^ . . ti so 'z, n >•« ^ 9

STATEMENT SHOWING THE NUMBER. OF ELECTION PETITIONS AND ELECTION APPEALS FILED, NUMBER DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF DISMISSAL/DECLARING THE ELECTION VOID AND NUMBER PENDING IN VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND SUPREME COURT AS ON 31-12-1972.

3 " g w w H

Legislative Assembly—General Elections—-Orissa, Tamil Nadu & West Bengal, 197] ^

§ C/"J

State

Filed

Orissa' . Tamil N a d u West Bengal

. . .

TOTAL :

. . .

. . .

.

.

Withdrawn

Dismissed

8 18 9

1 10 ..

4 7 ..

35

tl

7l

Elec. set aside

Pending

.. 1 ..

3 .. 9

1

Tl

Filed in S.C. 2 2

4

Withdrawn

D i s - Elec. set Pending missed aside

1 ..

.. ..

.. ..

1

7

77

1 2

3^

% a

CORRUPT PRACTICES IN ELECTIONS AND ELECTION PETITIONS

197

In all 257 election petitions have been filed after the Fifth General Elections to the various Legislative Assemblies in 1972 but so far the Commission has been able to gather, only 9 out of these election petitions have been disposed of uptill now. From whatever information received so far it appears that all the 9 election petitions have been dismissed. Thus if the election petitions are any indication then one can easily draw the conclusion that elections in our country are gradually becoming more cleaner, freer and fairer. In Great Britain, there has not been a single election petition on the allegation of corrupt practice since the year 1911. Therefore, it is claimed that corrupt practices have been completely eliminated from British elections. Those who make the novel allegation of rigging fully know this. Therefore, instead of saying so much now a days about individual corrupt practices, they now speak mainly of rigging but with this, I shall deal later on in this Report. Again, if the number of complaints received during the parliamentary elections in 1971 and assembly elections in 1972 be any indication, then the clear indication is that elections have not become that unclean as some people try to make them appear. Formerly, during the election period, including the day of poll, complaints in the shape of letters and telegrams used to be received in the Election Commission at the time of every general election in thousands and thousands. But at the time of the Lok Sabha elections in 1971, the total number of complaints from the entire country were 2092 only and at the time of the assembly elections in 1972 the total number was still less—it was only 1433. And these complaints have been classified in the Commission under the following broad heads:— 1. Omission of names from and inclusion of bogus entries in electoral rolls. 2. Transfer of officers on the eve of elections. 3. Participation by Government employees in elections. 4. Abuse of Government machinery by ministers, etc. 5. Partisan attitude of Government officers employed on election duty. 6. Printing and publishing of objectionable posters, pamphlets, etc. 7. Intimidation and coercion of voters at polling stations, etc. 8. Impersonation of voters. 9. Disturbances at meetings etc., and maintenance of law and order. 10. Complaints of other miscellaneous character. Therefore, from the number of complaints and the nature thereof also one will not be justified legally or morally to come to the conclusion that our elections are becoming more unfair and unclean. 3 EC/72—14.

198

CORRUPT PRACTICES IN ELECTIONS AND ELECTION PETITIONS

But how can we expect that elections will be absolutely and totally corruption-free when the whole country in every sphere and department of life and activity is plunged in the ocean of corruption. It is everybody's complaint that there is no business, trade or industry where blackmarketing or bribery is not practised. Some time back 1 read in the newspapers that while people in various parts of the country were dying of heat stroke and for want of water and rain during the peak period of the heat, black marketing in the sale of ice flourished briskly. I have further seen reports in the press that there was corruption even in the admission of students in certain universities and colleges and we hear so much of tax evasion on gigantic scale and of course the C.B.I, reports show the extent of corruption among the Govt. employees. It is difficult to find any single sphere of social and corporate life where corruption has not spread its tentacles. Remove corruption in general and corruption in election will be a thing of the past. In the next place, parties and candidates and politicians should do well to remember that apart from all moral considerations even considerations of pure self-interest suggest that corrupt practices in elections should be eliminated. Newton's Third Law of Motion would appear applicable here also. Every action has its equal and opposite reaction. If you try to win election by bribery, by force, by intimidation or violence or by stirring up narrow sentiments of caste, community, religion or by abuse of official machinery, then your opponents also will try as far as possible to do the same either in that election or in any subsequent election and pay you back in your own coin and thereby neutralise your action. If you give bribes to voters, then every other party also will be inclined to do so. If you have recourse to violence, you will thereby incite others to practise the same thing eithet now or on the next occasion. This will thus start a vicious competition to do evil things among political parties. In this whichever party is stronger or more resourceful for the time being may obtain the desired results for some time but ultimately it will bring about ruination of all those who indulge in these activities because by evil means and methods lasting good of the country cannot be brought about. At least that is not the lesson of history. Thus, even from the standpoint of self-interest the parties, candidates and others should desist from resorting to evil and corrupt practices in elections. With united efforts this is possible, this can be done and corruption can be eliminated from this land.

CHAPTER XII INNOVATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS 1. "He laboured, He practised penances and He became tired and heated. Out of Him thus tired and heated cameforth fame and valour." —Brihadaranyak Upanishad I. "This inflated collective method of policy-making has three results, First of all, it makes sustained thinking impossible. It may seem like belaboring the obvious to say that great political decisions require sustained and solitary thought . "Second, the collective method of policy-making is hostile to new departures because it tends toward the establishment of consensus at the lowest common denominator The collectivity pulls the incompetent up — and the innovator down — to its own level of unoffending mediocrity. After all, innovation is typically the achievement of one man who takes the risks and seeks the rewards, not of a faceless collectivity." —Hans J. Morgenthau, Truth and Power, (The Pall Mall Press Limited, London) (1970), pages 180-181. After the Fourth General Elections of 1967, a number of innovations and improvements in our election practice and procedure were introduced. They may be recounted as follows: (1) Tying of ballot boxes after the close of the poll with silk ribbon and sealing the knots thereof and thereafter putting the ballot boxes in strong gunny or cloth bags—the joints being stitched and sealed by the presiding officers and the candidates or their agents present at the polling stations; (2) Signatures in full of the presiding officers on the back of the ballot papers before such papers are issued to voters; (3) Reduction of distance between the voter's residence and the polling station where he is required to go to cast his vote; (4) The new marking instruments by which voters are required to mark the ballot papers in the screened compartment of the polling station; (5) Mixing of ballot papers contained in ballot boxes at all the polling stations within an assembly constituency before the commencement of scrutiny of the ballot papers and counting of votes; 199

200

INNOVATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS

(6) Issue of secret seals by the Commission to the Returning Officers for sealing after the declaration of the results the packets of used and unused ballot papers, packets of counterfoils of ballot papers and packets of other important election papers; (7) Ballot papers with counterfoils; and (8) Revision of electoral rolls in accordance with the system of 'electoral cards'. It is proposed to deal with each one of them briefly. (1) Tying of ballot boxes after the close of the poll with silk ribbon and sealing the knots thereof and thereafter putting the ballot boxes in strong gunny or cloth bags—the joints being stitched and sealed by the presiding officers and the candidates or their agents present at the polling stations : Complaints used to be received after the Fourth General Election of 1967 mainly from the Kashmir Province of the State of Jammu and Kashmir about the tampering of the ballot boxes after the completion of the poll. Such complaints were made to the Chief Election Commissioner verbally by some leading politicians of the province on a number of occasions. I explained to them that no ballot box closed after the completion of the poll could be tampered with unless the numbered paper seal printed at the Central Government Security Press at Nasik and inserted in the ballot box before the commencement of poll had been broken. The paper seal is required to be signed by the polling agents present and also by the presiding officer on the white surface of the paper seal. After the ballot box has been sealed with the paper seal, it is simply impossible for any person to open the ballot box without breaking or damaging that seal. On the paper seal the name of the Election Commission is microprinted as in the case of bank cheques. A regular account of the paper seals is kept by the Returning Officer. As a matter of fact, on the eve of the Fifth General Election to the Lok Sabha in 1971, a correspondent of the Manchester Guardian was shown an empty ballot box. It was closed with the paper seal and then he was asked to open it without breaking the paper seal. He was not successful and then he told me that not even one-tenth of the precaution was taken in Great Britain for securing the ballot box in such a manner. I have shown this to other foreign visitors and also the visitors who had come to the Election Commission from various parts of the country but none of them inspite of their ingenuity and skill could open the ballot box without breaking the paper seal. But the politicians from Kashmir would not be satisfied and then I told them that I shall try to make some further impiovement in regard to the securing of the ballot boxes. After careful thought it was decided that every ballot box used at a polling station should after the close of the poll be tied with a silk ribbon and the knots should be sealed and thereafter the ballot box should be put in a strong gunny or cloth bag and then the joints should be stitched and sealed by the seals of the presiding officer and the candidates or their polling agents who might be present at the polling station. This satisfied those who


201

raised objections as to the tampering of the ballot boxes and after the introduction of this innovation, hardly any complaint is now received from any part of the country about such tampering. (2) Signatures in full of the presiding officers on the back of the ballot papers : To stop the allegation that sometimes spurious ballot papers are inserted in the ballot boxes even during the course of the poll, directions were issued to the presiding officers throughout the country that before issuing the ballot papers to the voters, each ballot paper should be signed in full on its back by the presiding officer and the relevant rule was amended. Under rule 38 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, it is now specifically provided. It however, came to the notice of the Commission that some presiding officers used to sign a large number of ballot papers during the night previous to the commencement of the poll. Suitable directions were immediately issued that the presiding officers should put their signatures in full on the back of the ballot papers only about an hour or so before the commencement of the poll and never earlier. They were also told that they should not sign more than a limited number of ballot papers, say, 50 ballot papers, at a time. This has also practically eliminated complaints as to the bogus voting or as to the insertion of spurious ballot papers into the ballot boxes because at the time of counting, the Returning Officer is required to reject a ballot paper which does not contain on its back the signature of the presiding officer or the distinguishing mark of the polling station. Thus rule 56(2) (h) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 provides that the Returning Officer shall reject a ballot paper if it does not bear both the mark and the signature which it should have borne under the provisions of sub-rule (1) of rule 38. The rule, however, provides that where the returning officer is satisfied that such defect has been caused by any mistake or failure on the part of the presiding officer or the polling officer, the ballot paper should not be rejected merely on the ground of such defect. Obviously this can apply only to individual ballot papers. The returning officer however has no liberty to accept as valid large number of ballot papers if they do not bear both the distinguishing mark and the signature of the presiding officer as required by sub-rule ( ] ) of rule 38 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. (3)Reduction of distance between the polling station to which he is assigned :

voter's

residence

and

the

At the time of the Fourth General Election of 1967, the maximum distance between a voter's residence and the polling station to which he was assigned for the purpose of casting his vote was three miles. In 1968, it was reduced from three miles to two miles and before the Fifth General Election of 1971, it was reduced from two miles to two kilometres, that 1-1/4 miles. This has definitely reduced to a large extent the corrupt practice of free conveyance of voters to the polling stations by or on behalf of the candidates.

202

INNOVATIONS ANp IMPROVEMENTS

(4) New marking instruments for marking the ballot papers by voters : Formerly a number of ballot papers used to be rejected on the ground 3f double marking by voters on the ballot papers although in fact the voters concerned might have put only one mark on one symbol. This confusion used to arise because in a number of cases the real mark put by a voter and the smudge left by the mark sometimes used to look equally prominent and bright. In a good number of cases the smudge would fall on the symbol of another candidate so that prima facie it would appear that a voter has actually put two voting marks on the ballot paper on the symbols of two contesting candidates. After a good deal of thought and investigation, a new marking instrument has been devised with the result that any voting mark put by a voter with this new marking instrument can easily be distinguished from the smudge left by it. The reason is this. In the original mark arrow mark is shown anti-clockwise whereas the arrow mark in the smudge left by the original mark at a different place in the ballot paper is shown clockwise. It is therefore, very easy for the returning officer at the time of counting to see which is the real mark and which is the smudge. The rejection of ballot papers on this account has been altogether eliminated. (5) Mixing of ballot papers before counting : This is another highly salutary innovation which was introduced in our election law on the eve of the Fifth General Election to the Lok Sabha. This has eliminated to a large extent pre-election intimidation and post-election victimisation of voters belonging to the weaker, poorer and smaller sections of the community. I shall deal with this point in a subsequent chapter in greater detail. (6) Issue of secret seals by the Commission to the Returning Officers for sealing after the declaration of results the packets of used and unused ballot papers, packets of counterfoils of ballot papers and packets of other important election papers : This device of secret seals has been introduced by the Commission to do away with the possibility of tampering with the ballot papers and other important election papers after the counting of votes and declaration of results. In one case in a State, it was found that after the declaration of the results, packets in which the used ballot papers were kept were tampered with and the ballot papers which had been counted and on the. basis of which the result of the election had been declared, had been taken out of those packets and on many of the ballot papers which were accepted as valid by the returning officer at the time of counting, a double voting mark was placed on the symbol of another candidate on the ballot paper. Now, the law is that a ballot paper which contains double voting mark on it must be rejected. By having recourse to this heinous and nefarious practice, attempts were made to make out a case that there were serious defects and mistakes in the counting by acceptance of those ballot papers as valid. An election petition was filed and this contention was found by the courts to be valid although the Supreme Court ruled that it was difficult to fix the responsibility for this misdeed on any particular officer without further detailed investigation. To avoid recurrence of cases like


203

this, the Commission introduced the device of secret seals. A secret seal is sent in a sealed cover to every returning officer just on the eve of the poll. After the counting is over and the result of an election is declared in a constituency, under the rules, the returning officer is required to place the ballot papers, used and unused, their counterfoils and other election papers in separate packets. These packets are sealed and kept in a bigger receptacle like the steel trunk or box or strong gunny bags which in their turn are also sealed. All these seals on the packets and on the steel trunks or boxes or gunny bags are sealed by the returning officers and by the candidates or their agents who like to affix their seals. Now under the directions of the Commission, the returning officer is required to seal the packets with the secret numbered seal of the Election Commission as also the trunks, boxes or gunny bags in which they are kept. After the sealing has been done with the secret seals of the returning officers and the seals of the candidates or their agents, immediately thereafter the returning officer is required to send the secret seal to the Election Commission as quickly as possible. A regular register is maintained in the Election Commission of the secret seals with their numbers issued to the respective returning officers. If on any subsequent occasion under the orders of any court these packets are required to be opened, then after the contents taken out are put in new packets those new packets are required to be sealed by a different secret seal sent by and obtained from the Commission bearing a different number. The adoption of this device has practically eliminated the chances of tampering with the packets containing the ballot papers and other important election papers after the declaration of the results. (7) Ballot papers with counterfoils: This innovation was introduced after the Fifth General Election to the Lok Sabha. I received suggestion from some well-known person that it was high time that the Commission introduces ballot papers with counterfoils. A decision was therefore, taken that this should be done. Ballot papers with counterfoils are in vogue in Great Britain and in many other countries. It is felt that ballot papers with counterfoils are a definite improvement in the practice and procedure of our election. Before the introduction of the system of ballot papers with counterfoils, at the time of issuing a ballot paper to a voter, one of the polling officers had to record the serial number of the ballot paper against the entry relating to the voter in the marked copy of the electoral roll [vide quondam rule 38(2) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961]. That rule was as follows : "38(1) (2) At the time of issuing a ballot paper to an elector, the polling officer shall record the serial number thereof against the entry relating to the elector in the marked copy of the electoral roll."

204


Consequently, the name and other particulars of the elector and the serial number of the ballot paper issued to him would be seen side by side. Under the system in vogue at present, the serial number of the ballot paper issued to the elector will not be entered against his name in the marked copy of the electoral roll. Only the name of the elector to whom a ballot paper has been issued will be underlined in the marked copy of the electoral roll to indicate that a ballot paper has been issued to him. Present rule 38(2) reads inter alia as follows : "38(2) At the time of issuing a ballot paper to an elector, the polling officer shall— (a) record on its counterfoil the electoral roll number of the elector as entered in the marked copy of the electoral roll; (b) obtain the signature or thumb impression of that elector on the said counterfoil; and (c) mark the name of the elector in the marked copy of the electoral roll to indicate that a ballot paper has been issued to him, without however recording therein the serial number of the ballot paper issued to that elector : Provided that no ballot paper shall be delivered to an elector unless he has put his signature or thumb impression on the counterfoil of that ballot paper." This procedure has completely eliminated the chance, if any, of connecting a particular ballot paper with the elector to whom it was issued. Under the system of ballot paper with counterfoil, which was followed in the last Assembly General Elections in 16 States and 2 Union territories, held in March, 1972, the electoral number ot the voter, as entered in the electoral roll, is entered in the counterfoil and the voter's signature or thumb impression is taken on the counterfoil before the ballot paper is detached from the counterfoil and issued to the elector. The counterfoil of a ballot paper contains the Part number of the electoral roll and the serial number of the elector in the electoral roll (but not his name), the serial number of the ballot paper and signature or thumb impression of the elector. The chances of identifying a particular elector and the ballot paper issued to him from these mere numbers are very much less than previously when the name of the elector and the serial number of the ballot paper were shown side by side in the marked copy of the electoral roll. After the close of the poll the presiding officer of the polling station is peremptorily required by rule 46 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, to keep inter alia the marked copy of the electoral roll in a separate packet and the counterfoils of the used ballot paper in another separate packet. Each such packet is required to be sealed with the seals of the presiding officer and with seals either of the candidates or of their election agents or of their polling agents who may be present at the polling station and may desire to affix their seals thereon. These two sealed packets are not opened at the time of counting because these two packets have nothing to do with the counting of votes. After the counting of votes has been


205

over and the result of the election has been decided, these two packets along with the packets containing other election papers are kept in the safe custody of the District Election Officer under rule 92(2) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 and under rule 93(1) of the said Rules the packets of counterfoils of used ballot papers and the packets of the marked copy of the electoral roll along with the packets of used and unused ballot paper etc. cannot be opened or inspected by any person or authority except under the order of a competent court. From what has been stated above it will appear that the secrecy of voting is maintained much more effectively under the new system than under the old one. Even if a competent court permits any person to inspect the counterfoils of ballot papers and marked copy of the electoral roll as well as the used ballot papers as referred to in rule 93(1) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, even then by mere inspection of these documents it is simply impossible to find out which voter has voted for which candidate. This can be found out only if the court directs not only a recount of the votes under its own supervision but also that each ballot paper shall be related to its corresponding counterfoil. This will be a very difficult job and a time consuming one because unless the counterfoils, the ballot papers and the marked copy of the electoral roll are all compared together, the identity of voters cannot be established. This will appear to be not an easy task if we bear in mind that in a parliamentary election the number of ballot papers and counterfoils will run into lakhs and in an assembly election the ballot papers and counterfoils will run into 40/50/60/70/80 thousands if not more. It will thus be seen that the violation of the secrecy of voting is almost a practical impossibility under the new system. On the contrary, the new system of ballot paper with counterfoils has made secrecy of the ballot almost foolproof. *

A suggestion has been received that the voter must be asked to sign on the register (that is, in the electoral roll) against his number and not on the counterfoil. But it has several practical difficulties. The names of the electors are printed in the electoral roll in close space at the rate of about 80 to 120 names per page. There would not be sufficient space against each elector for taking his signature or thumb impression. Again more than 70 per cent of the electors give their thumb impression and not their signature on account of illiteracy. The space available in the electoral roll will not be at all sufficient for taking the thumb impression of the large majority of the electors. Again it makes no difference whether the signature or the thumb impression of the elector is taken on the marked copy of the electoral roll or the counterfoil of the ballot paper, because from the signature or thumb impression alone, it would not be easy to identify the elector. As I have already stated, the counterfoils of the ballot paper containing the signatures or thumb impressions of the electors are kept in a separate sealed packet which cannot be opened or inspected except by an order of a competent court and so in actual practice, it would not be possible at all to violate the secrecy of the ballot.

206

INNOVATIONS ANp IMPROVEMENTS

(8) Revision of electoral rolls in accordance with the system of electoral cards : This innovation was also introduced after the Fifth General Election to the Lok Sabha in 1971. At the time of the Fifth General Election to the Lok Sabha in 1971, complaints were received from a number of places about defects in the electoral rolls. On inquiry, a good number of these complaints were no doubt found to be baseless but it could not be gainsaid that many of the complaints were made with justification. In other words, in a good number of cases, there were defects in the electoral rolls, that is to say, either the names of wrong persons or dead persons remained in some cases on the electoral rolls or the names of eligible persons did not find any place in the electoral rolls. In a huge country like India with a population of 550 millions and an electorate of nearabout 300 millions, defects and errors in electoral rolls cannot be altogether eliminated specially, when the electors themselves hardly cooperate with the enumeration staff when they make house to house visits for preparaing electoral rolls, popularly known as voters' lists. To reduce these defects and shortcomings in the electoral rolls, this new system of revision was introduced shortly after the conclusion of the Fifth General Election to the Lok Sabha in March, 1971. With the senior officers of the Commission, I visited a number of States. I went into far-flung rural areas to see how the system was working. The system in a nut-shell is this : Books containing electoral cards are required to be printed and these books are given to the enumerators when they go to the electoral area to enumerate and record the names of persons who are to be included in the electoral roll and to delete and exclude the names of persons who are dead or who have ceased to be ordinary resident or have become otherwise disqualified or not entitled for being retained in the electoral rolls. The enumerator is required to ascertain from the head of the family or any other senior member thereof the names of all eligible persons who should be included in the electoral roll and also to delete the names of those whose names should be deleted therefrom. After recording the names of the eligible persons in the family on the electoral card thus prepared in duplicate, the head of the household or a senior member thereof is required to sign a declaration on the electoral card itself that the names as contained in the electoral card have been correctly recorded and that no name of any eligible person has been excluded. This card is thereafter signed by the enumerator also. After this has been done, one copy of the electoral card is handed over to the head or senior member of the house-hold for preservation. The introduction of this method had the effect of improving the condition of our electoral rolls to a remarkable degree and in the urban and rural areas, specially in the rural areas throughout the country, I was simply surprised to find how with great care these electoral cards were kept. This shows the enthusiasm of our electorate in the matter of elections. That in its turn shows how politically mature and conscious our electorate has become. This is a system which is perhaps unique in the whole world.

CHAPTER XIII UNREASON IN ELECTION POLITICS "Good name in man—and woman—dear My lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls. Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him And makes me poor indeed." —lago to Othello in Shakespeare's Othello Act IH, Scene III. 2. "A wise and brave people will neither be cozened, nor bullied out of their liberty; but a wise and brave people may cease to be such; they may degenerate; they may sink into sloth and luxury; they may resign themselves to a treacherous conduct; or abet the enemies of the constitution, under a notion of supporting the friends of the government; they may want the sense to discern their danger in time, or the courage to resist, when it stares them in the face In the days of Tarquin the people of Rome were not yet corrupted. In the days of Caesar they were most corrupt. A free people may be sometimes betrayed; but no people will betray themselves, and sacrifice their liberty, unless they fall into a state of universal corruption; and when they are once fallen into such a state, they will be sure to lose what they deserve no longer to enjoy". —The Works of Lord Bolingbroke, Volume II, page 107. 3. "There is always a risk of change of attitude particularly if the election goes against a particular party". —Per Hidayatullah J. in Om Prabha Jain's case [AIR 1968 SC 1083]. 4. "It I win, the election is free and fair; if I loose, it is corrupt and rigged." —A well known politician of a State belonging to an Opposition Party during his conversation with the Chief Election Commissioner. 207

208

UNREASON IN ELECTION POLITICS

The title of this chapter has been chosen on the pattern of the title of a recent book "The Politics of Unreason, Right-Wing Extremism in America 1790—1970" by two well known American authors, Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab. In this book the authors have dealt with and examined a number of movements which have a tendency to influence and find support of the lower class electoral base in America, but which were based upon no reason and good sense but only upon unreason. In our recent elections, there has been ample evidence of a number of political activities which if analysed properly would be found to be based upon unreason. Some of them are (1) allegations regarding 'rigging' in elections, (2) allegations as to chemical treatment of ballot papers, (3) allegations as to rigging by organised violence and intimidation and (4) allegations of malafides in the introduction of the new procedure of counting. It is proposed to deal with them in seriatim. A. Rigging in Elections : From facts and statistics and decisions of the courts in so far as sucn decisions are available, we have already tried to show that individual corrupt practices are steadily on the decline in our elections. Even the critics of our elections realize this. But even realizing this, they cannot accept the hard position that elections in India, a comparatively new democracy, can be free and fair while elections in several other countries, including some old democracies, are not yet free from unfair means and corrupt practices. Therefore, for some time past we have been hearing quite often about what is called in the press and in political circles 'rigging'. The term 'rigging' is nowhere to be found in our election law. It is not one of the eight specified corrupt practices. It is not even a term of art, peculiar to elections. We have been hearing about it in relation to our elections since after the 1969-Mid-Term General Elections in a number of States in whispering tone in some areas. We heard of it even at the time of the Presidential Election of August, 1969. Since the Great Schism in the Congress in 1969 we have been hearing about it after every election in a sonorous voice. Constant repetition has the great quality of imparting a semblance of truth even to an absurd and fantastic falsehood. To put it m )re correctly, the gullible and credulous public start believing it to be true. This is the notorious Goebbles method practised in Germany on a huge scale during the Nazi regime. Good things people will not generally believe but bad things they will believe instantly and without any question. If however, you ask them what do they mean by 'rigging', what is the modus operandi in the practice of rigging, does rigging have only one form or is it like a chameleon that it may change its colour according to time and circumstances, I am sure very few will be able to answer these simple questions even among the educated and sophisticated sections of the community. Then, if you ask those who are vociferous about it as to whether they have any direct knowledge or experience about rigging at elections, I am sure very few of them, if they have any respect for truth, will be able to say anything from personal knowledge and experience. Almost everything is based upon hearsay evidence received from workers


209

of parties and candidates defeated at the polls and other interested persons. If you cross-examine any of them, he will fall flat before such crossexamination. The dictionary meaning of 'rig' appropriate in this connection is 'to manage or manipulate in some underhand or fraudulent manner', 'to manipulate unscrupulously'. As pointed out already, this is a general expression and not a term of art. But one thing is clear.. When people speak about rigging in an election, I think they try to convey the idea that a corrupt practice has been committed at the election in a constituency or in a number of constituencies on a large scale in an organised manner with the active help or consent or connivance of the party in power acting either singly or acting in collusion with the election machinery, including the Election Commission. In other words, the manner in which the expression is used clearly suggests that rigging means unscrupulous and underhand or fraudulent management and manipulation of elections by resort to corrupt practices or by the adoption of any unfair means in an organised manner by the governmental machinery or by the election machinery, or by both acting jointly. We may now examine in some detail some allegations regarding rigging in elections. B. Chemical treatment of ballot papers : The allegation made several days after the declaration of the results in the 1971—Fifth General Election to the Lok Sabha of chemical treatment of ballot papers and marking the same in a mechanical way with a magic invisible ink is a glaring instance of an allegation of 'rigging' of elections. A number of election petitions making this bogus allegation was filed in the various High Courts, such as the Delhi High Court, the Mysore High Court, the Bombay High Court, the Allahabad High Court etc. All these allegations have been turned down not only in the High Courts but even by the Supreme Court of India and costs have been awarded in each case to the Election Commission. It is not necessary to refer to these judgments of the High Courts and the Supreme Court, but it is necessary to point out the absurdity and the mischievousness of the allegation. Those who made this mischievous allegation several days after the declaration of the results wanted perhaps to wreck the Constitution of India and to bring about a political chaos in the whole country and thereby to bring to an end democracy itself in this land. It was openly stated that the entire constitution of the House of the People would be proved to be unconstitutional. One shudders to think about the nefarious designs of the persons who conceived this. They have no love for the country or for the welfare or good of the people of this country. To serve their own interests they did not hesitate to bring about chaos, confusion and revolution in this country. After the conclusion of the Fifth General Election, a sense of general satisfaction prevailed in the entire Election Commission and the election machinery throughout the country because according to all available information, the Fifth General Election to the Lok Sabha was held in the best ever possible manner without any hitch or disturbance. But then in its

210


issue of 20th March, 1971, the weekly 'Blitz' of Bombay published a warning about such a nefarious design which was being hatched. The Blitz even gave the modus operandi of this mischievous design. The warning given by the Blitz came to be true and practically close upon the heels of the Blitz publication, the allegations about chemical treatment of ballot papers started with full force and gusto. Many politicians and pseudopoliticians belonging to several political parties openly, secretly or tacitly supported this allegation. This was clear from the political complexion and affiliation of the persons who filed election petitions with this allegation in the various High Courts as well as from the evidence which came out in some of the cases. Those days were the darkest days in the election history of India. But as 'Sruti' says—"Truth prevails and not falsehood". Therefore, this fantastic, mischievous and absurd allegation has met its proper fate at the hands of the supreme tribunals of the land, marking at the same time those serf-styled politicians as the biggest enemies of the nation. It is not necessary to dilate this aspect of the matter here. The whole country will judge these people on the basis of the Judgment of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. But the absurdity of the whole situation which has not fully been brought even in the judgments of the Courts may briefly be recounted here. The story, as already noted, gained currency in certain political quarters several days after the declaration of the results that a certain percentage of ballot papers in 200 (according to another version 250) selected parliamentary constituencies were chemically treated and used in the polling stations in those constituencies. The 'Calf & Cow' symbol, it was alleged, on such chemically treated ballot papers was stamped with invisible ink which became visible after about 72 hours because of some chemical action. It was further alleged that some other chemical application made the chemicalised ink evaporate in the case of stamp affixed on such ballots after a fixed period (N.B.—The meaning of this sentence is not at all clear but I am putting it in the same words in which I have found it) and that the different pattern of results in West Bengal and Aligarh, where counting was done immediately after polling lent support to this theory. The further allegation was that by a mechanical process the voting mark with the invisible ink was put on the 'Calf and Cow' at exactly the same place. It was also alleged that the fraud could have been easily detected and proved if the counting had been done according to the polling stations as had been the practice in the past four general elections in the country. The change in the counting pattern after the nomination period had begun, was part of the conspiracy to cheat the Indian electorate and befool the world. The above, in a nut shell, was the substance of the allegations made. To show how absurd and fantastic the story was, it is necessary to do a bit of analysis of some of the important steps in the election procedure and explain some of the practices followed in the elections. The Election Commission at first thought that it should remain silent about such wild and fantastic stories but letters and communications started coming to the Commission in which, while congratulating the Election Commission and the election machinery throughout the country on the great task performed,


211

it was strongly urged upon the Commission that "any lie, even when blatant on the surface, gains momentum if oft repeated without any exposure by those in authority and gains the colour of truth in course of time". These were the words mentioned in a letter which was received from the Civil Liberties Council of a premier State in the South, namely Tamil Nadu. It is to be particularly noticed that all these allegations and canards were made only after the declaration of the results of the elections when the clear picture of the party positions emerged. No objection as to chemically treated ballot papers or the use of invisible ink etc. was made by anybody either openly or whisperingly in any part of India before the declaration of the results. The absurdity of the whole thing was inherent in the allegation itself and will be apparent from the details of the allegations and the facts and circumstances to be presently mentioned. It was alleged that the poll was rigged in respect of 200 (or 250) selected parliamentary constituencies. This involved at least 120 millions of electors and an election machinery consisting of returning officers, assistant returning officers, presiding officers and polling officers numbering at least 5/6 lakhs. In addition, there were thousands and thousands of police personnel and sector magistrates on duty guarding polling stations. It was not clearly mentioned anywhere whether the so-called chemically treated ballot papers were ballot papers different from the ballot papers printed under the direct supervision of the State Chief Electoral Officer and his staff, such as the returning officers etc., under strictest security guard in the Government Press, or whether the ballot papers printed as aforesaid in the Government Presses in the course of or after their printing had been chemically treated. Nor was it spelt out clearly by whom and in which place they had been chemically treated. The following facts and circumstances will reveal the absurdity of the allegation,— (1) The paper required for printing the ballot papers came directly from the various big paper mills in the country, such as the Orient Paper Mills at Brajrajnagar in Orissa and Amlai in Madhya Pradesh (with their head office in the building of the United Commercial Bank Ltd., Parliament Street, New Delhi); the Ballarpur Paper Mills in Andhra Pradesh (head office at No. 124, Janpath, Thapar House, New Delhi); the Bengal Paper Mills, Calcutta (head office at 14, Netaji Subhash Road, Calcutta-1); the Mysore Paper Mills, Bhadravati in Mysore, and the Titagarh Paper Mills, Calcutta (head office in Chartered Bank Building, Calcutta-1). (2) If the paper was treated chemically in the mills themselves, then who supplied the chemicals for the huge quantities of paper required for printing the ballot papers. There is no indication as to the source from where the chemicals were received. Were all the paper mills mentioned above involved in the process ? Then, what was the modus operandi in the chemical treatment of the paper ? Was not any scientific and trained personnel required for that ? Who allowed them within the precincts of the paper mills ? From where they were drafted ? What is the nature of the chemical with which the paper was treated and at what stage of the manufacture of the paper ? If the paper was chemically treated after it had been manufactured, then with whose permission was this done and did it not require any laboratory ? Is there any such laboratory within the

212


precincts of the paper mills themselves ? Did the colour of the papei change after such chemical treatment ? These and many other questions will crop up if the theory is accepted that the paper for printing the ballot papers was treated within the paper mills themselves. We should not forget in this connection that every paper mill in the country has, as every workshop and factory in the country has, now strong workers' unions. Was it possible that such a colossal conspiracy to manipulate elections in this nefarious manner should escape the notice of the hundreds and thousands of workers of the paper mills, especially when the workers are now extremely vigilant about the activities of the management ? Or was it that the managements and the workers and employees in all these big paper mills of the country joined together with the originators and perpetrators of this evil design for implementing the same in order to give a thumping victory to one of the parties at the poll ? It may be pointed out that many of the workers' unions do not owe allegiance to one and the same party. (3) If not in the mills themselves, then were the papers chemically treated in the Government Presses ? Are the Government Presses equipped with laboratories in which chemicals for treating the papers are available in the required quantity and at very short notice ? The time available for printing the ballot papers in the Government Presses was extremely short. Firm orders for the printing of ballot papers could be given by the Chief Electoral Officers concerned only after the lists of contesting candidates with the respective symbols allotted to them had been prepared after 3 P.M. on the last date fixed for withdrawal of candidatures by the various returning officers in the State. Thereafter, the Chief Electoral Officer had to check carefully the lists of contesting candidates from all the parliamentary constituencies within the State concerned and then only firm orders for the printing of ballot paper could be given with the names of the contesting candidates and their respective symbols etc. Therefore, only a few days were available in the Press for the printing of the ballot papers before the date of the poll, in numbers running into lakhs and lakhs. (4) After the ballot papers were printed, they were sent under strong armed guard to the respective District Election Officers and there the ballot papers before being despatched to the polling stations were kept in the treasuries or sub-treasuries under strong guard and double lock. (5) If the theory was that the papers were chemically treated in the Government Presses, then the question would arise, at what stage—before the printing of the ballot papers or after the ballot papers had been printed but before they were packed in bundles ? It was alleged that certain percentage of the ballot papers were chemically treated. What was the exact percentage ? Had the chemical treatment of lakhs and millions of ballot papers been done one after the other or had been done in bundles ? If so", were the bundles loose or tight ? Were they big or small ? Were scientific and trained personnel readily available in the Presses ? In the Government •Presses there are strong employees' unions owing allegiance to different political parties. Could it have been kept secret from their knowledge ? Or were all of them, in hundreds and thousands, bribed by offer of illegal gratification ? These and so many other questions would crop up naturally in this connection.


213

(6) In the next place, if it was not done in the Press, was this chemical treatment done in the treasuries or the sub-treasuries where the ballot papers were kept for a day or two before being sent to the various polling stations through the returning officers ? The District Election Officer who is generally the District Magistrate himself is a senior officer of the State Government. Without his active co-operation, this sort of thing would not have been at all possible. Questions similar to those raised above would crop up here also. (7) In this connection, we should not forget that there were a number of States and Union territories where the party in power was not the party in power at the Centre. And in these States, namely Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Mysore and Punjab, and in the Union territory of Delhi, the party in power in the Centre, that is to say, the Congress (then presided over by Shri Jagjivan Ram) swept the poll. Even in Gujarat where the party in power at the Centre was not the party in power, the seats were divided in equal numbers between the two rival groups of the undivided Congress, whereas, it is pertinent to mention here that the performance of the Congress (then presided over by Shri Jagjivan Ram) was not as good in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan and also, to some extent, in Andhra Pradesh, where the party in power at the Centre was in power. Thus, in Bihar, where an SVD Government was in power, out of 53 seats, the Congress then presided over by Shri Jagjivan Ram got 39 seats, in Uttar Pradesh, where also an SVD Government was in power, out of 85 seats the Congress then presided over by Shri Jagjivan Ram got 73, in Mysore, where the Government was led by Congress presided over by Shri Nijalingappa, all the 27 seats went to the Congress presided over by Shri Jagjivan Ram. In Punjab, where Akali Dal was in power, out of 13 seats, 10 went to the Congress then presided over by Shri Jagjivan Ram. In Delhi where the Jan Sangh was in power, all the 7 seats were bagged by the Congress then presided over by Shri Jagjivan Ram. But in Rajasthan, the Congress then presided over by Shri Jagjivan Ram got 14 seats out of 23 and in Madhya Pradesh 21 out of 37 seats. (8) But mere chemical treatment will not do according to the story. Invisible ink also will have to be used, that is to say, on those chemically treated ballot papers the voting marks on the symbol 'Calf & Cow' would be given according to the story, in invisible ink at the identical place and when the ballot paper with this invisible ink mark was given to the voter, then if the voter put his mark on the symbol 'Calf & Cow' or any other symbol, then, after 72 hours, according to the theory, the mark put by the voters will automatically become invisible and mark put on the ballot paper with invisible ink beforehand would appear and become visible. The question naturally arises, at which place and by whom and at what point of time the mark on the symbol 'Calf & Cow' was put on the ballot papers? Could this prior marking on the ballot papers with invisible ink be done in the polling station where the agents of all the candidates were present? Then the appearance of the invisible marks or the dis-appearance of the visible marks could not take place simultaneously, because the invisible ink mark must have been put earlier, whereas the visible mark had been put by the voter on the date of poll during the polling period starting from 7.30 or 8 in the morning and ending at 4.30 or 5 in the evening. Then, as the polling was spread and staggered throughout the country 3EC/72—15

214


over a number of days (from the 1st to the 10th March, 1971) the placing of the invisible marks on the ballot papers must necessarily have had to be spread and staggered in a systematic and calculated way in respect of at least li lakhs polling stations. By which agency and from what place or places this was done? From where the instruments for marking the invisible mark in large numbers were made available and to whom ? To get over this difficulty, recourse was had to the second fantastic theory that the invisible mark was put by some mechanical process on the symbol 'Calf & Cow' and because it was done by a mechanical process it was placed on every ballot paper at the identical place. But then the same question would arise. In view of the staggering of the poll, would it have been done on the same day? If on different days and from different places, what are the details thereof? And if only on a certain percentage of the ballot papers this practice was resorted to, then was it more or less the same percentage in all the 200 or 250 constituencies because the difference of votes between the elected candidates and the next candidate even in the so-called selected constituencies has not been uniform ? For example, in the South Delhi parliamentary constituency, assuming it to be one of the selected constituencies where Shri Balraj Madhok contested and who first made this charge of .use of chemicals and invisible ink in the elections, the votes polled in favour of the various candidates were as follows : (1) (2) ;3) [4) [5) [6) (7) (8) (9)

Inder Sen Kali Ram Khushinder Singh Bains Ghansham Sharma Shastri G.V. Satyanarayana Ram Mohan Dubey . Balraj Madhok Shashi Bhushan Soam Datt Joshi

. . . .

. .

. .

.

.

.

. .

545 886 325 411 1,273 766 96,816 1,68 406 533

For all practical purposes, it might be regarded as a straight contest. The votes polled by Shri Balraj Madhok was not a negligible number. According to the theory, the valid ballot papers mentioned above of all the candidates other than Shri Shashi Bhushan must not have been chemically treated and marked with invisible ink stamp and that means that the perpetrators of the act including the lakhs and lakhs of presiding and polling officers must have been endowed with some prescience or with DivyaChakshu (enlightened vision) so that they could easily distinguish between the two types of ballot papers. India has been since at least the time of the Atharva Veda been known for indrajal (black magic) and therefore this might have actually happened ! It was alleged that the machine-like stamping of the symbol 'Calf & Cow' created doubts in his mind. If so, why no objection was taken at the time of counting itself ? From his statement it appeared that as a matter of fact Shri Balraj Madhok was present at the time of counting and according to newspapers reports he was reported to have said at the time of leaving the counting place that he conceded defeat to Mrs. Gandhi and not to Shri Shashi Bhushan. (9) If, however, the story was that the chemically treated ballot papers were printed in and imported from Soviet Russia, then the question would arise when the lists of contesting candidates of these 200 or 250 selected parliamentary constituencies were sent to the Soviet Union. Were they


215

sent through the Soviet Embassy in New Delhi? How were they all brought from different parts of India to the Soviet Embassy in Delhi ? The lists were prepared by the returning officers who are pretty senior officers of the State Governments and then before print orders are placed, all the lists of contesting candidates were checked, as pointed out already, by the Chief Electoral Officer concerned. Were the lists obtained in a surreptitious manner from 200 or 250 returning officers or in bulk from the Chief Electoral Officers, each of whom is a very very senior officer of the State Government of the rank of Secretary, if not of a stut higher status ? Were all the returning officers of these constituencies or the Chief Electoral Officers concerned in conspiracy and league with one another and sent the lists to the Soviet Union through the Air India International or some foreign airlines ? When were arrangements with these airlines made ? In Soviet Union were the lists delivered first to the Indian Embassy in Moscow ? If not, to which agency of the Soviet Union ? Were the facilities for printing the ballot papers in different regional languages available in Soviet Union? Could crores of ballot papers with different symbols be printed in short time in that country ? Where were the invisible ink marks put on the chemicalised ballot papers in the Soviet Union or India ? Was it not a very serious allegation against a foreign government that that government with a view to rigging the elections of such a big country like India agreed to have the ballot papers printed in the presses of its own country ? And would it not be in flagrant violation of the well established relations between two foreign countries ? Would any responsible government agree to these things ? These questions and many other questions would have cropped up in this connection. Then it should not be forgotten that the last dates for withdrawal of candidatures were different in different States. The time gap, was about seven days according to the difference in the dates for the issue of the writ notifications. Then again, after the ballot papers had been printed in Soviet Union and chemically treated, were they sent to some centralised place? If so, where is that place ? And who is the person or authority to whom they were sent ? And how did that person or authority distribute them to the 200 or 250 returning officers of the 200 or 250 selected parliamentary constituencies which must have been spread over the length and breadth of the country ? In the allegation, nothing is specific as to the location of these selected 200 or 250 parliamentary constituencies in the country nor is anything stated at all as to the basis on which or the person or persons by whom these 200/250 parliamentary constituencies were selected. Or were only a percentage of the ballot papers for these constituencies printed in Soviet Union, that is to say, only those ballot papers which were chemically treated ? And were the rest printed in India ? It should not be forgotten in this connection that the internal air flights in the country had been quite irregular for some time at that time and during the period of the poll they were very irregular. This is common knowledge. How could the ballot papers in that event be distributed to about 200 or 250 constituencies and to about 1,80,000 polling stations.

216


After a number of experts—scientists examined in some of the election cases by the petitioners failed miserably and collapsed before searching crossexamination in the High Courts, the emphasis started being shifted on the canard that the ballot papers were printed in the Soviet Union. From what has been stated above, it would appear that the story was not only fantastic and absurd but it was the figment of fiction of a brain which must have gone wild. It should not be forgotten that in such a vast country with 550 millions of population, such operation would not be kept a secret, specially, as we have shown already, lakhs of persons would have to be involved in it and when governments with different complexions were in power in a good number of the States and Union territories. We have seen from our experience that even the top most secret decisions taken in the Union Cabinet see the light of the day in the course of a few hours. And such a countrywide gigantic operation was kept secret for days and days together and everybody became aware of it only several days after the results of the elections were declared in all the parliamentary constituencies throughout the country. Perhaps even a precocious child would not be inclined to believe this cock and bull story. But alas ! self-seeking knows no bounds of absurdity. (10) Then, if the visible marks which were put by the voters on the day of poll on the ballot papers became invisible in the course of 72 hours, did the full signatures of the presiding officers on the back of the ballot papers recorded in pursuance of rule 38(1) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, also become invisible? If they had not, what was the ex. planation ? Were those signatures immune to chemical treatment ? What has been stated above as to the signatures, will apply with greater force to the distinguishing marks which were required to be put upon the back of every ballot paper before issue to the voter by the presiding officer of the polling station concerned under rule 38 aforesaid. If may be mentioned here that the distinguishing mark on the ballot paper was put with the same ink which was used by the voter for marking the vote because the stamp pads in both cases were of ink of the same quality. If the marks put by the voters became invisible, did the distinguishing marks also become so invisible ? Then attempt was made to make out a strong case by saying that the performance of the Congress (then presided over by Shri Jagjivan Ram) was not good in Bengal because there the counting started immediately after the date of the poll. If that be so, then what about Kerala ? In Kerala, the poll concluded on the 9th March and the counting started the next day. i.e. on the 10th March, 1971, and the result of the Lok Sabha election in Kerala, as in the 1970-September General Election to the Assembly, had been remarkable so far as the United Front and the Congress (then presided over by Shri Jagjivan Ram) were concerned. (11) If, however, the story that the chemically treated ballot papers were put into the ballot boxes only after the poll was over, the theory would become still more fantastic. That would mean that the ballot boxes used at more than \\ lakhs polling stations in 200/250 parliamentary constituencies throughout the country must have been opened by. breaking their


217

numbered paper seals and all other seals and after cutting the sealed cloth or gunny bags, in which these ballot boxes were placed, and thereafter all the genuine ballot papers used at the time of the poll running into several millions were taken out of the ballot boxes and the chemically treated ballot papers, again running into several millions, inserted in their place and stead into those ballot boxes and these were sealed with the paper seal and other seals with the signatures of the candidates or their polling agents and again replaced in cloth or gunny bags to give these papers a show of genuineness. It may be mentioned that the paper seals are printed at the Nasik Security Press and are numbered and the name of the Election Commission micro-printed on each paper seal just like bank cheque and that no ballot box after it has been closed and sealed can be opened without breaking the paper seal. A regular account of the paper seals distributed among the presiding officers is kept by the returning officer of the constituency. The same paper seal could not have been used because it had been broken in the process of opening the ballot box for committing the mischief. The existence of a paper seal with a different number would have at once raised doubts at the time of counting. No doubt whatsoever was however mentioned at the time of counting in any of the 200/250 parliamentary constituencies. Then, these chemically treated ballot papers must have on their back the signatures of the presiding officer who presided over these 1J lakhs polling stations throughout the country and also must have borne the distinguishing marks of their respective polling stations. How was it possible to obtain the signatures of many lakhs of presiding officers who after doing their special job as presiding officers must have gone back to their regular jobs and services? Were they all bribed? From where the lakhs of distinguishing marks for stamping each and every ballot paper again obtained? The presiding officers returned the stamps for making these marks and all other election materials to the respective returning officers. It has already been mentioned that all the ballot boxes are kept under the safest possible custody before the start of the actual counting. Did not the signatures and the distinguishing marks by whomsoever they might have been put on the back of the ballot papers, become invisible under the influence of this chemical treatment ? Not even a fool or an idiot can believe such an absurd, fantastic and wild canard. Brazen-faced attempts were made to show that the whole mischief was perpetrated in the Election Commission in New Delhi in conspiracy with the Prime Minister and a number of senior Central Ministers such as Shri Jagjivan Ram and Shri Uma Shankar Dikshit and for that purpose ail the ballot papers were brought to Delhi before the poll. In an earlier chapter it has already been shown that neither the paper for printing the ballot papers nor the printed ballot papers themselves are at any stage brought to the Election Commission. Requisitions for the necessary quantity of paper which may be required for ballot papers at an election are sent by the Chief Electoral Officer direct to the Director General of Supplies and Disposals and then the paper mills at the instance of the Director General of Supplies and Disposals sent the requisite paper to the State Government Press concerned under the care of the Chief Electoral Officer under whose direct supervision the printing is done. In the case of the Union territories the requisition is made for obvious reasons to the Director General of Supplies and Disposals by the Election Commission and then the remaining stages are exactly the same as in the States. Thus

218


it was a downright falsehood and blatant lie to say, suggest or insinuate that the paper for printing the ballot papers or the ballot papers were brought to the Election Commission for committing the mischief. Above I have mentioned only a few important aspects and features relating to ballot papers, their printing and distribution, the time available for such printing and distribution, the difference in ballot papers of different constituencies because of difference in names and numbers of candidates, and symbols allotted to them, the direct responsibility of the Chief Electoral Officers and the officers working under them such as the district election officers and the returning officers at every stage in relation to ballot papers, and millions of people involved in the whole process, to show the utter absurdity of the foolish and mischievous allegation. It is needless at this stage to enter into a detailed discussion of the matter as the judgments of the High Courts and Supreme Court have laid bare the hollowness of the charge. It has now found its right and proper place in the dust bin of history. C. Rigging by violence and intimidation : In the 1972-Fifth General Election to the Legislative Assemblies, allegation of rigging first came from West Bengal. This time the allegation took the form of coercion, threat or violence by organised gangs of goondas set by ruling party in a pre-planned manner at polling stations with the help of the polling personnel and thereby scaring away genuine voters and then marking the ballot papers by those goondas with the help of polling staff. In fairness to each of the political parties in West Bengal, it must be said that none of them indulged in 1971 in the absurd story of chemical treatment of ballot papers and use of invisible ink thereon, nor then, or in the Assembly elections of 1972 did any of them impute any evil motives or designs to the Election Commission. It must also be said in fairness to those who made allegation of rigging by organised intimidation and violence, that the allegation of such rigging is not that sinister, dangerous, absurd or mischievous as the allegation of rigging the elections by chemical treatment of ballot papers and the use of invisible ink in marking the ballot papers etc. But even then, the allegation was confined at first to about 18 assembly constituencies. The number was raised to 34 and 39, ultimately it went up to 200. It was alleged that rigging at the instance of the ruling party at the Centre was committed in the shape of intimidation, coercion and violence. But no election petition was filed because those who made this allegation regarded the entire election as a fraud and therefore as no election at all. But under the Constitution there is no other way to challenge an election which has once been held and in which the result has been declared. Because of the introduction of ballot papers with counterfoils, the voters without exception coming to the polling stations to cast their votes were required to put their signatures or thumb impressions on the counterfoils and it would have been quite easy for the High Court to find out whether the allegations were true to any substantial extent so as to materially affect the result of the election. A few election petitions, even two, three or four, would have proved or disproved the truth or otherwise of the allegations and it would not at all have been difficult to locate with the help of the marked copy of the electoral roll the voters whose signatures or thumb impressions appeared


219

or purported to appear on the counterfoils. But that has not been done. It was noticed in the press that there was a talk of a non-official inquiry body or panel being appointed to go into the matter but such non-official inquiry body or panel would have no status under the law or the Constitution. On the contrary, it would seem that any such step would have been unconstitutional in view of the clear language of article 329 (b) of the Constitution and, mind you that article starts with the non obstante clause 'Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution'. With this non obstante clause, article 329(b) reads as follows :— 'Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature.' "Such authority" referred to in the above provision is now the High Court. Therefore, even no writ petition or no other proceeding can be fifcd or started before any court or tribunal in the country by a defeated candidate or by any other person challenging an election whether as a fraud or whether as illegal or unconstitutional except by means of an election petition presented before the High Court under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Then, it has been stated in some quarters that this objection to the appointment of any non-official inquiry body or panel is a technical one. I would differ. This is a provision of the Constitution and election once held and completed is a very important matter, which should not be interfered with unless the allegations have been proved to the hilt as in a criminal case. If this is regarded as a technical objection, then even the provisions in the Constitution regarding fundamental rights can at convenience of persons concerned be termed as technical, but that would indeed be a dangerous and preposterous proposition. Can we ever suggest that there should be nonofficial bodies for the trial of criminal cases involving offences, say under the Indian Panel Code in accordance with procedure to be evolved by such non-official bodies, and not the criminal courts duly constituted under the Code of Criminal Procedure, for such trial in accordance with the provisions of that Code on the ground that the members of such non-official bodies should evoke greater confidence ? This suggestion seems to be fantastic because it suggests an extra legal procedure for dealing with matters for which there are adequate provisions in law and the Constitution. In the next place, any non-official body or panel even if appointed would have to rely almost entirely on oral evidence because important election documents, such as packets containing counterfoils of ballot papers, used ballot papers, unused ballot papers, marked copy of the electoral roll or any other important election papers mentioned in rule 93 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 would not be available for inspection to such body or panel because these election papers can be made available for inspection only under the order of a competent court, i.e., the High Court. And searching cross-examination of witnesses appearing before the non-official body or panel in an orderly manner as in a court would not have been possible. Most of the witnesses would be likely to

220


be biased. Further, such non-official inquiry after a lapse of so many months of the elections might have even created tense political situation by creating embittered feelings among the followers and supporters of the various political parties. It may not be out of place to mention another point here. There was no allegation of rigging in West Bengal at the time of the Lok Sabha General Election in March 1971, i.e., just one year before the Assembly elections in March, 1972. The electorate, the polling staff, police personnel etc., by and large, remained practically the same in both elections. It does not appear readily acceptable to common practical sense that in the course of one year all of them in about 200 assembly constituencies out of a total of 280 resorted to or acquiesced in rigging by coercion, intimidation and violence in the Assembly elections. There were reports from returning officers about disturbances in only 10 polling stations in constituencies near Calcutta and in a few other places and the Commission took immediate steps by passing necessary orders with respect thereto. Only four complaints were received in the Secretariat of the Commission from four electors that they could not cast their votes either because they were turned away from the polling stations or they left the polling stations out of fear without casting their votes. Under these circumstances, it seems difficult to believe that election in West Bengal was rigged in about 200 out of the total 280 assembly constituencies. The possibility of the practice of intimidation and violence in a number of polling stations in a few constituencies round about Calcutta and its suburbs cannot be altogether ruled out because shortly before the poll I personally visited these constituencies and found tension and strained feelings among the various political parties and their workers and supporters in the suburban and outlying areas of Calcutta. Long after the elections were over, allegations started being made that the election had been vitiated by rigging not only in West Bengal, but also in Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir. With booth— capturing in Bihar and other places and repoll and fresh poll in various States I have already dealt. I do not say that elections in this country have become absolutely free from corruption. But that they are freer and fairer than before— there is no doubt about it and hence the theory of rigging, i.e. commission of corrupt practices in an organised fashion with the help or connivance of the governmental machinery or the election machinery or both acting in collusion with each other ; but this theory, as amply shown in this Report, does not stand the test of close scrutiny. D. Allegations of mala fides in the introduction of the new counting procedure. In the general elections held previously, the counting of the votes was done polling station-wise, i.e. all the votes polled at a polling station were counted separately and the result of the voting in each polling area was also .announced. This was in accordance with the old rule 56(7) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, which provided that "After the counting of all ballot papers contained in all the ballot boxes used at a polling station has been completed, the returning officer shall make the entries


221

in a result sheet in Form 20 and announce the particulars." As a result of this procedure, it was possible to know the number of votes cast for each of the contesting candidates and the political parties, if any, which they represented, at each polling station. This materially affected the secrecy of the vote inasmuch as if all the electors in a polling area or a majority of them had voted for a particular candidate representing a partticular party, it was easy to know not only the trend of voting in that polling area, but also more or less how each person had voted. It was alleged that often on the basis of such information the people residing in some of the polling areas were subjected to all sorts of harassment after the election. This also led to intimidation and victimisation of the voters because if the trend was against the powerful local interest, the voters were often intimidated from going to the polling station at all for voting. It is regrettable to say that such nefarious practices were employed mostly against the Harijans and other weaker and poorer sections of the community. A number of glaring instances came to my notice at the time of the mid-term general elections in 1969 in Uttar Pradesh. But I do not like to recount them here in great detail. Reference may briefly be made to a few cases. In the first place, when on the 5th February 1969 I, accompanied by the Commissioner of Meerut Division, the district magistrate of Meerut, the senior superintendent of police of Meerut and Secretary, Shri A. N. Sen of the Election Commission, visited in 405-Chaprauli Assembly constituency polling stations nos. 82 and 83 in Dhikana Primary Pathshala in village Dhikana situated in the interior at a fairly long distance from the main road, I found a large number of young persons sitting in the open spacious compound and other open areas in front of the polling stations. Polling in the polling stations was outwardly quite peaceful, the young persons in the open compound and areas hailed us with large shouts : they offered us even milk of which I took a small quantity as I could not avoid it. The presence of so many young persons sitting, loitering and gossiping in the compound just in front of the polling station created a suspicion in my mind that their object was not so innocent as it appeared to be. This was not exactly in consonance with law as contained in section 130 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as the presence of so many young persons loitering and gossiping very near the queue of the voters might naturally be interpreted that they were watching whether any Harijan voter had the temerity to stand in the queue within their view. I enquired from those young persons as well as the presiding and polling officers of these two polling stations and the polling agents as to the conditions prevailing there and all of them said that the conditions were peaceful and I could also see that the conditions were actually peaceful. I could see also a" number of police personnel standing near the polling stations. But one representative of the press (several such representatives were also touring with me) stated to me in English that what was stated by those persons or even by the polling staff and the polling agents was not absolutely correct. (This rather seemed a bit strange as the polling staff had been drafted from outside. It was also difficult to understand why all the polling agents should have suppressed the truth.) He told me that some Harijan voters including some women had told him that out of fear they did not and could not go to the polling stations to cast their votes. I at once with the Divisional

222

UNREASON IN ELBCTION POLITICS

Commissioner went a bit into the interior part of the village and found by the road side a number of persons, urchins, children, a few adult males and females. On my asking the males and females, they however did not mention to me anything about fear arising out of intimidation or coercion or any fear at all on their part. One woman in purdah told me something in rustic Hindi which meant that she would not like to go to the polling station out of her own accord. The press representative concerned was near me. When I told him about this, he retorted that perhaps out of modesty and shyness they were not divulging the real truth to me. But one incident happened which definitely appeared to me rather unusual. Out of that big crowd of persons present near the polling stations, though there were absolutely peaceful conditions, one aged man of about sixty years twice or thrice practically rushed to me through the crowd and volunteered to say "saheb idhar to sab bilkul theek thak hai" ; — and he was reported to be a Harijan. Even when I was getting into the jeep, he went to the length of pulling the tail of my coat to repeat the same thing. This unusual behaviour on the part of this elderly Harijan voter gave rise to a suspicion in my mind that perhaps "All is not well in the State of Denmark". I returned from Dhikana village and took my car on the main road. In the second place, after 4 p.m. we reached village Shoran in 407Khatauli Assembly constituency where, among others, polling stations nos. 24 and 25 were situated side by side in the Shoran primary school building. Through village narrow, muddy and dirty paths and bye-paths, with very great difficulty we could go near the primary school in jeeps leaving our cars at a distance. As soon as we got down from our cars at a distance, a lawyer who came from Muzaffarnagar, Shri Hatindar Mittal by name, started shouting before us at the top of his voice that the elections were not free and fair as the Harijan voters were not being allowed to cast their votes. There was a number of police personnel present there. Immediately I asked the lawyer to take us to the Harijan locality and I accompanied by the Divisional Commissioner, the district magistrate, the superintendent of police and others went into the interior and asked the Harijans as to whether they had voted and, if not, whether they would then like to vote. When those Harijan voters told us that they had not voted and were ready and willing to cast their votes, I asked the lawyer to bring as many of them to the polling stations which were not far off, as would like to cast their votes. At that time it was about 5 O' clock and the polling hour was coming to a close. Still in exercise of inherent constitutional power of the Commission I allowed those voters who wanted to vote to come to the polling stations situated side by side and in my presence they formed big queues of at least 150 persons, and those of them whose names were found in the electoral roll with the polling officers were immediately allowed to cast their votes. After making this arrangement, I came out in the compound of the primary school building and took the sector magistrate to task as to why he did not make arrangments for these people to vote with the help of the Jarge number of police personnel present there. To this the sector magistrate replied that nobody — neither any candidate nor any of the polling agents of any candidate—brought this to his notice. It was already about 5.30, still the persons who stood in the queue were voting one by one. I would have stopped there for longer


223

time, but one Shri Ajmal Khan made repeated and insistent requests that I should visit village Barkata. After this personal experience, the Commission was determined to put a stop to such undemocratic practices. And it first tried the experiment of mobile polling stations, but it proved quite costly. Then, it started setting up polling stations in larger numbers. And lastly, on the eve of Lok Sabha General Elections in 1971, it decided to introduce the new counting procedure on the receipt of letters and representations from the members of the public. Under the revised system of counting, as notified by the Ministry of Law in S.O. No. 479, dated 27-1-1971, all the ballot papers contained in all the ballot boxes used at a polling station are counted initially to find out their total number. The number so ascertained is recorded in Part II of the Ballot Paper Account (Form 16) appended to the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, Part I of which is filled in at the polling station itself by the presiding officer. After the total number of ballot papers contained in the ballot boxes used at the polling stations in an assembly constituency are counted and recorded, the ballot papers are put inside a receptacle and mixed together. After mixing, the ballot papers are handed over to the counting tables for being sorted candidatewise and counted. As a result of this procedure, the result of the voting will be known and declared only for a whole assembly constituency and not for each polling area. In spite of the new procedure it is quite possible, if need be, to ascertain the ballot papers used at any polling station because the ballot papers used at a polling station are required by law before issue to an elector to be — (a) stamped with the distinguishing mark which distinguishes the ballot papers used at that polling station from the ballot papers used at any other polling stations, and (b) signed in full on its back by the presiding officer of that particular polling station. [Vide rule 38(1) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961]. In addition, the serial numbers of the ballot papers issued by the returning officer to a polling station under his jurisdiction are recorded by him in a register maintained by him for the purpose. All these things, together with the initial counting just mentioned above, make it quite possible to ascertain ballot papers used at a polling station even after the mixing of all the ballot papers although a little more time may be taken in this procedure. The new procedure was introduced by short amendments in rule 55 and rule 56 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. For sub-rule (1) of rule 55, two new-sub-rules—sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (1A)—were substituted. For sub-rule (1) of rule 56, a new sub-rule was substituted, and for sub-rule (7) of the same rule a new sub-rule was substituted. These amendments were notified, as pointed out already, by the Ministry of Law on the 27th January, 1971. The poll started on the 1st March, 1971, and the counting started on the 10th March, 1971. Thus, there

224


was ample time to give wide publicity to this new procedure and rehearsals were held under the supervision of senior officers of the Commission at the various State capitals throughout India relating to this new method of counting. But announcement of the new procedure was made in the second week of January, 1971. It may be pointed out that ballot papers are rejected individually in accordance with the detailed provisions contained in sub-rule (2) of rule 56 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. The various grounds are specified in that sub-rule. Whether the counting is done polling stationwise or assembly constituencywise, has nothing to do with the rejection or acceptance of a ballot paper. It has been stated in some quarters that the new method may lead to corruption and allegation was actually made that the new method was introduced to prevent the chemically treated ballot papers from being detected. That this allegation is absolutely bogus is clear from the position that with a little effort the ballot papers can be separated polling station-wise, if need be. But it surpasses one's imagination how this new method can encourage corruption. On the contrary, the new method was introduced to reduce to a large extent the corrupt practice of pre-election intimidation and post-election victimisation of voters and to maintain secrecy of voting. We should not forget that the secrecy of the ballot is one of the fundamental bases of representative democracy. The secrecy of the ballot is the most prominent feature of the election law in any true democracy. As Dimock and Dimock observed in their book 'American Government in Action' at page 294 — "The secret ballot, we now realise, is one of our basic liberties not to be given up without a struggle." It is clear from the evidence which the famous French publicist Alexi de Tocqueville gave before the Select Committee of the British House of Commons on the 22nd June, 1835, that the first enactment in France 'relative to secret voting is to be found in the law of 29th June, 1820.' The law said in express and positive terms 'that the vote is to be secret'. The law provided that 'the elector himself after writing his vote or having caused it to be written by an elector chosen by himself, shall deliver the president the paper folded and that immediately after the examination of those papers they shall be burnt in the presence of the electors.' [Minutes of Evidence — pages 230-41] Thus, the new procedure was introduced with these two objects, namley, to reduce the extent of the prevalence of the corrupt practice of pre-election intimidation and post-election victimisation and to make secrecy of voting more perfect than before the new amendment specially in relation to Harijans and persons belonging to weaker sections of the community. The idea for introducing this new system came also from some voters themselves. The Commission received a number of letters in which voters themselves suggested that the method of counting should be changed.


225

Thus, on the 8th of January, 1971, a citizen named Prem Nath wrote a letter to the Commission as follows : New Delhi Dt. 8-1-71 Sir, With growing violence and the tendency on the part of leaders and political parties to hold communities to ransom, as happened recently in a constituency in Rajasthan, the secrecy of the ballot is getting eroded. This is all the more so, in urban constituencies where voters of particular communities are concentrated in particular areas. The present practice, therefore, of counting votes boothwise or boxwise needs reconsideration and revision so as to preserve the secrecy of the 'voting pattern' as well, apart from the individual voter. The Commission would be doing a great service to the community at large if they could give this matter serious consideration in the context of the ensuing mid-term poll. With regards, Yours faithfully, Sd|- Prem Nath.' I need not refer to other letters. After the announcement had been made about the introduction of the new procedure, Shri J. M. Lobo Prabhu, ex-MP and an important member of the Swatantra Party, sent to the Chief Election Commissioner on the 23rd January, 1971, a letter enclosing a copy of an article he was going to publish in his paper 'Insight'. The relevant paragraph of that article is reproduced below : 'The Election Commission is trying to check electoral offences but its proposals, referred to a Parliamentary Committee, will not apply to the present elections. The Election Commissioner has however taken steps to increase the secrecy of votes by mixing ballot papers, not only before they are issued but also while they are counted so that there is not the remotest possibility of the voter or the village being identified.' Thereafter, the Commission received a letter dated 11th February, 1971, from the President of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, Bombay. The letter is reproduced below :— "BHARATIYA JAN SANGH, BOMBAY. 11th February, 1971 The Election Commission of India, Talkatora Road, New Delhi-1. Sir, We refer you to your notification No. 3|4|71 dated 30th Jan., 1971, regarding the new procedure of counting of votes.

226


The demonstration for counting was held in Bombay on the 10th February, 1971. We were informed that the votes will be counted according to each assembly constituency. It was pointed out to the Chief Electoral Officer and other officers that if the counting is assemblywise, each political party will come to know about its voting strength in each assembly constituency. This will not be proper, particularly when assembly elections are to be held in one years' time. It was therefore suggested to the Chief Electoral Officer that the votes may be counted in such a manner that no political party comes to know the voting strength in each assembly constituency. The votes could be counted in lots of 50,000 voting papers every time after mixing up the voting papers from all the assembly constituencies. We request you to kindly look into the matter and do the needful. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, for BHARATIYA JAN SANGH, BOMBAY Sd/." As will appear from that letter, the President of the Bhartiya Jan Sangh, Bombay wanted to go further than the counting of votes assembly constituencywise as under the new procedure ; he wanted that the ballot papers from different assembly constituencies should be mixed up and thereafter they should be counted in lots of 50,000 ballot papers at a time. In this connection, a letter received from one Shri S. R. Narayana Ayyar, Advocate, Bombay may also be mentioned. This letter makes very interesting reading, recounting an experience of his own life, and is reproduced below : "S. R. Narayana Ayyar Advocate, Now at 3C|18, Tata Colony, Bombay 74 (AS) Jan. 13, 1971. Shri S. P. Sen Verma Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi. Dear Sir, Let me congratulate you on the new method of counting which you announced yesternight in an interview. I have often felt that the procedure followed up to now is not secret ballot. Once a client in a Municipal election told me that he had paid 200 Rs. to an Estate Manager for inducing the labourers to vote for him and that not even a single person voted and wanted me to take action against the Manager. I told him


22?

that he would make an ass of himself as it is an offence and he could not prove it also. I asked him how he knew that none of the voters voted for him. He told me that the serial of the Estate wa.s from Number to certain number and they had a separate ballot box and when the box was opened he did not find any vote for him. I wonder why such a procedure if it was being followed in Britain was not adopted earlier. Anyhow better late than never. May I suggest one more order from you ? It is this. The poor presiding officers and clerks etc. are mortally afraid of the candidates. Hence they used to allow them very near them when counting. Unless the agents are asked to sit a few feet away — say at least 6 ft. if necessary in an elevated bench, they will be able to induce the counting clerks etc. to turn the voting papers so that they may see the votes. Hence they should be away and the clerks also should be ordered not to count the votes in such a way so as to be seen by the agents. Even they only should see the back of the voting paper. Some such orders may become fool proof in the secret voting. For the information of the public kindly ask every State to publish before election the number of voters in the State and also if possible by District in the papers. Wishing you good service in this difficult job of election, Yours faithfully, Sd/- S. R. Narayana Ayyar" It is not necessary, however, to burden this Report with extracts from other letters and communications. When the rehearsals about the new counting procedure were being held at various State capitals under the guidance of senior officials of the Commission, the representatives of various political parties were invited to be present at the rehearsals and after seeing the new procedure in action they were enthusiastically in favour of the new system. The revised procedure of counting of votes is the same as that followed in the United Kingdom under the U.K. Representation of the People Act, 1949. See in this connection rule 46 of the Parliamentary Elections Rules in the Second Schedule to the Representation of the People Act, 1949. The entire procedure has been clearly described in Schofield's Parliamentary Elections (Third Edition) pages 350 — 52 and Parker's Conduct of Parliamentary Elections (1970 Edition) pages 207 et seq. The new procedure is exactly on the lines of the British procedure, with the exception that in the United Kingdom even the postal ballots are mixed up with the ordinary ballot papers but in our country this is not done because number of postal ballots is not as large as in the United Kingdom. It may be mentioned here that this counting procedure has been in vogue in Great Britain at least for full one century, i.e., since the Ballot Act of 1872.

228


The revised procedure, which was made public through the press and Radio before the poll was taken in the Fifth General Election to the Lok Sabha in 1971, was generally welcomed by the political parties and the people. It was particularly welcomed by the Harijans and other weaker sections of the community who felt confident that they could exercise their vote with less fear and lesser intimidation, as in the revised procedure of voting, it would be impossible to know how a particular village or a polling area had voted. The Commission is of the definite view that the new procedure has to an appreciable extent reduced the corrupt practice of intimidation of voters in the Fifth General Election to the Lok Sabha. This has been proved by the result of elections in several constituencies from where formery candidates belonging to and enjoying the support of the affluent and influential sections of the community were generally returned. It may be pointed out that the revised procedure of counting cannot in any way affect the result of the poll which will depend entirely upon the markings on the ballot papers. The object of the revised procedure is only to deny the information which could be used for intimidating and coercing sections of the electorate, particularly those belonging to the weaker elements of the community and to make the secrecy of voting more perfect and secure. ' On the 15th January, 1971, the Commission sent the following circular letter to the Chief Electoral Officers of all States and Union territories : "IMMEDIATE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA Talkatora Road, New Delhi-1. No. 470/71 Dated the 15th January, 1971. To The Chief Electoral Officers of all States and Union Territories. Subject : Counting of votes—New Procedure. Sir, I am directed to say that at present ballot papers contained in ballot boxes used at polling stations in elections from a parliamentary or assembly constituency are counted polling station-wise. This practice has been in vogue in this country since the time of the First General Elections of 195152 as it is in consonance with the existing rules, such as rule 55(1) and rule 56(7) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. It is no doubt true that ballot boxes used at more polling stations than one may be opened simultaneously for counting the ballot papers contained therein but this is done by counting officers, that is, counting supervisors and counting assistants separately and polling station-wise. There is, in the opinion of the Commission, a drawback in this procedure of counting because it may enable not only the counting staff but also the candidates, their election agents and their counting agents to know in favour of which candidate the majority of the voters assigned to a particular polling station have cast their votes. This in its turn may cause the voters not to turn up at polling stations for the purpose of casting their votes because of their fear that


229

thereafter they may be intimidated, pressurised and coerced by influential persons after the declaration of the results. The possibility of a threat of intimidation like this cannot be altogether ruled out. As a matter of fact, the Commission has received a number of representations, sometimes even anonymous (because the persons making the representations out of fear did not like to disclose their identity). After considering the matter in all its aspects, the Commission has therefore decided that henceforth the existing practice of counting of votes polling stationwise should be given up and the practice which has been in vogue in the United Kingdom should be followed. According to that parctice it will not be possible for any person present at the time of counting to detect or to know the general trend of voting at any particular polling station in any election. The practice may be described as follows:— (1) In the first place, the ballot papers contained in any ballot box or boxes used at any polling station should be taken out first after observing all the formalities i.e. according to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of rule 55 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 according to which before opening a ballot box at a counting table, the counting agents present at that table shall be allowed to inspect the paper seal or such other seal as might have been affixed thereon and to satisfy themselves that it is intact. The returning officer shall then satisfy himself that none of the ballot box or boxes have in fact been tampered with. If the returning officer is satisfied that any ballot box has in fact been tampered with, he shall not count the ballot papers contained in that particular ballot box. (2) Thereafter the counting staff, under the supervision of the returning officer, shall count the number of the ballot papers so found in the ballot box or boxes and see whether that number tallies with the number of ballot papers issued to voters at the polling station other than the ballot papers cancelled or ballot papers used as tendered ballot papers and as mentioned in Part I of the ballot paper account in Form 16. If there be any discrepancy between the two numbers, then, that also should be noted in the ballot paper account. (3) After this, the ballot papers found in the ballot box or boxes used at the polling station should be placed in a big drum or other receptacle the lid of which should be kept tightly closed. (4) The above procedure should be followed in respect of the ballot box or boxes used at every polling station and this procedure may be adopted simultaneously at different counting tables. (5) After the ballot papers found in all the ballot boxes used at all the polling stations within the constituency have been placed in the big drum or other receptacle as aforesaid, they will be mixed up together slowly with a wooden ladle or other instrument with a smooth surface so that no ballot paper h damaged or spoiled in the process of mixing up. 3 EC/72—16

230


(6) Thereafter the returning officer (which expression also includes the assistant returning officer) shall rill as many empty ballot boxes as there are counting tables with such ballot papers and place each such box in the custody of the counting supervisor at each counting table. This procedure will be repeated till the counting of all the ballot papers in the big drum or other receptacle is completed. (7) Thereafter, as each handful of ballot papers is taken out by the counting staff, they will be sorted candidate-wise and counted and kept in convenient bundles of fifty in separate trays for separate candidates. (8) In the course of sorting, if any ballot paper appears to be doubtful to the counting staff, then they also will be kept in a separate tray. (9) Thereafter the procedure hitherto followed will be observed. This procedure will reduce the law and order problem at the time of counting. Necessary amendments are being made in the relevant rules and the relevant forms. You are requested to send sufficient number of copies of these instructions to all the returning officers and counting staff and everybody else concerned. You may kindly note that this new procedure will be applicable in relation to the counting of votes cast in the forthcoming general elections and in all subsequent bye-elections and general elections to the House of the People and State Legislative Assemblies. Yours faithfully, (Sd.) A. N. SEN, Secy." When several days after the declaration of the results the allegation of rigging the elections by means of chemical treatment of ballot papers and invisible ink etc. was first made then, it was concocted by a fertile brain that this new counting procedure was also introduced to carry this heinous design of chemicalisation of ballot papers to its successful fruition. In the Report of the Joint Committee of Parliament on amendments to the Election Law, there is a minute of dissent in which it has been argued that there was hardly any necessity in introducing the new counting procedure. In support of his view, the learned member has quoted a paragraph from the Report of the Election Commission on the Fourth General Elections in India held in 1967. With great respect to what has been stated in that Report, it is humbly submitted that it is difficult to agree with the conclusions mentioned in that paragraph because those conclusions do not appear to have been based upon the actual experience of what sometimes happens in particular polling stations. It is mentioned in the Report that the Commission used to receive suggestions for introducing the new counting procedure. No adequate ground or reason has been advanced for the doubt that victimisation and harassment of particular areas is not true to


231

any appreciable extent. Even if the allegation of victimisation and harassment of voters in any particular area is not true to some extent, even then it is felt that there is a very good case for the introduction of the new procedure. The point is in a free democracy and in elections which are supposed to be free and fair for all the voters, why shopld not a procedure be introduced if it helps in ensuring such free and fair elections for all eliminating intimidation, harassment and victimisation even for a few. Then it is also difficult to agree that the new method has no merit of being systematic. The detailed instructions given to the returning officers clearly show that the new method is as systematic as the old one. This method, as already stated, has been in vogue in Great Britain at least for full one hundred years. It is also difficult to agree with the statement in that Report that the political parties if they are so minded can find out broadly how a particular area voted. When the ballot papers of all the polling stations in an assembly constituency are mixed together after the initial counting it is simply not possible for any political party or for any candidate to have any idea as to the trend of voting in any particular polling area or areas. It is therefore difficult to agree with what was stated in the Report on the Fourth General Elections. And in any case no positive case has been made out that the new method has some inherent defects. Then it has been stated that the new counting procedure was not in conformity with the substantive provisions contained in section 64A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It may be pointed out that ihis contention does not appear to be sound and valid. How the new procedure is not in conflict with section 64A is shown below :— The condition precedent for the attraction of section 64A is that at any time before the counting of votes is completed ballot papers (whether all or some) used at a polling station must be unlawfully taken out of the custody of the returning officer by whom counting is done or must be accidentally or intentionally destroyed or lost or damaged or tampered with. This condition obviously refers to the period after the poll is over. Now the following contingencies may occur :— (i) Ballot papers used at a polling station may be unlawfully taken away or accidentally or intentionally destroyed etc. when the ballot box or boxes containing the ballot papers is or are on their way from the polling station concerned to the place where the ballot box or boxes will be kept under strong guards under the overall control of the returning officer. In such a case there is no difficulty because the ballot papers used at the polling station or some of them have been unlawfully taken away or destroyed etc., and from the records of the returning officer he could easily find out the total number of ballot papers issued to the polling officer of that particular polling station. Whether all of them were actually used at a polling station is entirely a different matter. Even if we assume that all the ballot papers issued to that polling station were used because all the voters assigned to that polling station turned out for casting their votes, even then there is no difficulty. In such a

232


case, after the completion of the counting is over, if it be found that the difference between the largest number of votes obtained by one 6f the candidates and the next largest number of votes obtained by a second candidate is more than the total number of ballot papers issued to that polling station, then there is absolutely no necessity for holding a fresh poll. If, however, it is found that the difference is less than the total number of ballot papers assigned to the polling station, then under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 64A, the Election Commission, shall direct a fresh poll at that polling station. (ii) If the ballot papers (whether all or some) contained in the box or boxes used at a polling station are unlawfully taken out or destroyed etc. while they are in safe custody of the returning officer, then also what has been stated above, will apply. There is no difficulty in this case also. (iii) If the ballot papers (whether all or some) used at a particular polling station are unlawfully taken out or destroyed etc. while they are on the way from the place of custody to the counting place or while the initial counting of the ballot papers of that particular polling station is going on under the direct supervision of the returning officer and under strong police guards all round, even then there is no difficulty and what has been stated under (i) will apply. (iv) If, however, after the initial counting has been over and the ballot papers have been made into bundles in accordance with the instructions issued by the Election Commission and the bundles have been mixed up, if at such a stage, a number of bundles of ballot papers is unlawfully taken out or destroyed etc., then also, it is not difficult to resolve the difficulty satisfactorily. In such a case, the following procedure can be adopted by the Election Commission :— The Election Commission on receipt of report referred to in subsection (1) of section 64A may first direct the returning officer to get from Part II of the Ballot Paper Accounts of the various polling stations within the assembly constituency, the total number of ballot papers found in the ballot boxes used at all these polling stations and thereafter to ascertain the total number of ballot papers which have not been destroyed or lost etc. The difference between these two total numbers will be the number of ballot papers destroyed or lost. After this the Commission may direct the returning officer to complete the counting of the remaining ballot papers. If on the completion of such counting it is found that the difference between the votes obtained by the leading candidate and the votes obtained by the next candidate is larger than the total number of ballot papers destroyed or lost, then instead of directing any fresh poll at any polling


233

station, the Commission may direct the returning officer to declare the result of the election. If however, the difference between the number of votes obtained by the leading candidate and the number of votes obtained by the next candidate is less than the total number of ballot papers destroyed or lost, the Election Commission may immediately direct the returning officer to separate the ballot papers polling stationwise by reference to the distinguishing mark, the signature of the presiding officer, the Returning Officer's Register and the ballot paper account in form 16, for the purpose of ascertaining to which particular polling station or stations the ballot papers which have been unlawfully taken out or destroyed etc. actually belonged and after having ascertained that, to take a fresh poll in that particular polling station or stations in accordance with clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 64A. Thus from whatever angle we look at the point, there is no difficulty in separating the ballot papers and the new procedure, in no way, contravenes or runs contrary to any of the provisions of the Election Law either contained in the Act or in the Rules. A point has again been made that in the process of mixing up, some of the ballot papers may be lost. This is absolutely incorrect because after the initial country of the ballot papers polling station-wise according to the instructions of the Election Commission, the ballot papers are made into convenient bundles of 25, 30 and 40 or even 50. Those bundles are then kept together by rubber bands. Therefore, there is absolutely no chance of any ballot paper being lost in the process of mixing up. Shortly after the new procedure was introduced, senior officers of the Election Commission held rehearsals at the various State capitals to show to the Chief Electoral Officers and the Returning Officers the actual working of the new procedure. At such rehearsals the representatives of the various political parties were invited and many of them attended. After the rehearsals were over, everybody expressed complete satisfaction with the new procedure. The effect of the new procedure has been immediately felt. This time, after the elections were over, very few complaints as to intimidation, coercion or victimisation were received from any quarter of the country and the voters belonging to the weaker sections of the community were by and large able for the first time to cast their votes in an absolutely free manner according to their own free will and choice. It was only after the results of the election went against some parties that all sorts of fantastic allegations relating to the new procedure started being made. But then even several days after the declaration of the results in the Fifth General Election and the due constitution of the new Lok Sabha and while the new Lok Sabha was in session, the Commission received a letter that the poor Harijans were being subjected to great hardships in village Khanjarpur, near Modinagar, tehsil Ghaziabad, district Meerut in U.P. The reason for this harassment was clear because the candidate supported by the powerful sections of the community had been defeated in the election. The whole letter is quoted below :

234


"Shri S. P. Sen-Verma, Election Commissioner, New Delhi. Sir, I am profoundly grateful to your Secretary for giving a sympathetic hearing on the phone. I am sorry to inform you that in village Khanjarpur (Near Modinagar) Tehsil Ghaziabad, Distt. Meerut which has the leading majority of Jats, the poor Harijans are being subject to great hardships due to this recent elections. Their only fault is that they have exercised their right of vote against the wishes of the majority. They dared to do this on various statements issued by you and other leaders which were published in the paper guaranteeing their safety in future. That it has become impossible for them even to earn for their existence, or to exist in the village. That daily they are subject to ill treatment by the hands of the majority and as well as by the hands of police which are blindly backing the majority, irrespective of the fact that the Distt. Magistrate and the Senior Supdt. of police have already been informed. That if they will not be protected, it will become very difficult in future to have a fair election in the country. It is therefore requested that an immediate strong action be planned to save them. An early reply in the matter will be much appreciated. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Bhagwat Sahai Dated : 30th March, 1971. Tibra Road, Modinagar." The allegations made in the letter, if true, show how difficult it is to root out a social evil. But the evil has already dwindled substantially and in course of time will altogether vanish from our election scene. The weaker sections of the community must on their part take courage and must be bold enough to stand against this scourge without fear of the stronger and more affluent elements of society. Upon all these considerations, the Commission is definitely of the view that for the sake of free and fair elections, the new counting procedure should not be given up.

CHAPTER XIV REFLECTIONS ON THE CHANGE OF ELECTORAL SYSTEM : THE LIST SYSTEM 1. "Democracy not only requires an appropriate temper: It also requires appropriate institutions. Not the least important of thoss institutions, especially in its bearing on party, is the electorate, and the methods by which the electorate votes. Here, so far as the evidence goes, it would appear to suggest that a method of voting by the method of proportional representation ultimately tends, when it is pushed to its logical conclusions, to accentuate and exacerbate party, and to make it assume the character of an end in itself, and not a means in a system of democratic government. If each party can be assured of its proportionate share, every party will do its utmost to secure that share. There is indeed a great difference between the system which is advocated for England by the Proportional Representation Society and the integral system of some other countries which only allow the voter to vote for prepared party lists in many-member constituencies. But if we once begin to listen to the logic of mathematics, we may easily be driven by that logic beyond our original intention. If we desire to escape the growth of over-mighty parties, and if we prefer to keep a member in close touch with his constituency rather than assign him directly to his party, we shall be wise to keep the single-member constituency and a simple method of voting. By the logic of mathematics they may be dubious. But the real question we have to solve is not a question of mathematical logic. It is a question of what best suits the logic—and not only the logic, but also the life—of democracy. Dictators have sometimes climbed to power on the ruined steps of proportional representation." —Ernest Barker, The Citizens' Choice, Chapter II, "The Breakdown of Democracy." 2. "On the pretext of preventing a 'tyranny of the majority' and protecting the political minority the advocates of proportional representation are really thinking more of the narrower interests of their own group. Once, however, such a minority becomes a majority it is no longer interested in proportional representation. —Karl J. Newman, European Democracy between the Wars, (1970 Edition), page 88. 3. "Critics of the present system have concentrated their criticism on tiie aspect of representation system. But in assessing an electoral system, one must bear in mind its two purposes, namely, its representative "aspect and its purpose of providing a group of people able to govern effectively. The fate of the 4th French Republic in 1958 is a reminder that the two purposes are not always compatible. The problem of any constitution is to balance the two purposes but, if there is a clash, the tradition of the 235

236

REFLECTIONS ON THE CHANGE OF ELECTORAL SYSTEM: THE LIST SYSTEM

British constitution is to err on the side of the effective government rather than democratic institution on the basis that stable government is in the long-term interests of democracy." —Glyn Parry, British Government (1969 Edition), page 85. In this Chapter, it is proposed to say a few words about the electoral system. There is a demand in some quarters for changing the present electoral system altogether. It has been stated since after the Fifth General Election to the Lok Sabha in 1971, that the entire method of election should be changed and replaced by the proportional representation system, specially by that variety thereof which is known as the list system. It may be stated that one variety of the p.r. system, namely, the single transferable vote system is already in vogue in our country in smaller elections to the offices of the President and the Vice-President of India, in elections to the Rajya Sabha and in elections to the Legislative Councils of the States having such Councils. The demand now is that another variety of the p.r. system, namely, the list system should be introduced in elections to the House of the People and the State Legislative Assemblies in lieu of the present plurality system of voting in single member constituencies which has been in vogue since the adoption of the Constitution and even before. The system of plurality, i.e. relative majority (but not necessarily an absolute majority) is in vogue in elections to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and in elections to the Lower Houses in various Commonwealth countries by and large. In the State of Tasmania, one of the component States of the Commonwealth of Australia, p.r. system has been in vogue for a long time but it has not been adopted by any other State of the Australian Commonwealth. Even in the United States where the Presidential system of government under whibh the chief executive is not responsible to the Legislature, is in vogue, the p.r. system in any of its form has not been adopted. This does not imply that the p.r. system cannot be in vogue in countries in which parliamentary system of government prevails with the chief executive such as the Cabinet being collectively responsible to the Lower House. As a matter of fact the three Scandinavian Kingdoms of Sweden, Norway and Denmark combine parliamentary government with the p.r. system. Both Sweden and Norway have list system, whereas Denmark has tried to work out a complicated plan of combining single member constituencies with p.r. No system of voting, whether the present plurality system of voting or the proposed list system of voting or any other variety of the p.r. system can be termed good or bad in the abstract, that is to say, can be regarded as either intrinsically and inherently good or intrinsically and inherently bad. The system which might have worked well in one country under one set of political conditions and circumstances may prove to be quite unworkable and therefore not acceptable in other countries with different political conditions and circumstances. The reason is simple. Politics like mathematics is not an a priori science. It is an empirical study. Therefore the value and utility of any political institution or system will depend upon the conditions, circumstances, attitude of the people, the liking which the people have developed for the institution and the system because of its

REFLECTIONS ON THE CHANGE OF ELECTORAL SYSTEM : THE LIST SYSTEM

237

simplicity, its long continued existence in their midst and its overall effect upon the social, political and economic institutions, which they serve. The present plurality system of voting, that is, the relative majority but not necessarily an absolute majority in single-member constituencies has, as already pointed out, been in vogue in our elections by and large since the First General Elections of 1951-52. There had been a few double-member constituencies but they were abolished in 1961 and since then all parliamentary and assembly constituencies in our country have been single-member constituencies. Even before the adoption of the Constitution, this plurality system of voting was in vogue in elections in our country with limited franchise. The people of this country have been accustomed to this system. Therefore, before we discard this system for the list system of voting or any other variety of the p.r. system, we must very carefully consider all aspects of the matter. India is a vast country with a population of over 547 millions and an electorate in the neighbourhood of about 300 millions. First of all we are to consider whether the list system with its complexity would be properly workable in this vast country. A peculiar thing to be noticed about the list system or any other form of the p.r. system is that it is not in vogue in any big country of the world at present. The list system was in vogue in the Weimar Republic of Germany in elections to the Reichstag from 1919 to 1933 and it has been stated by eminent writers that it was responsible for the collapse of the Weimar Republic and the emergence of Hitler and his Nazi party to power in the 1930—September elections. The p.r. system before that led to the emergence of fasicism in Italy. The p.r. system was abandoned in France when the Constitution of the Fifth Republic was adopted in 1958. As Glyn Parry has said in his "British Government", the fate of the Fourth French Republic in 1958 is a reminder that the two purposes of an electoral system, namely, its representative aspect and its purpose of providing a group of people able to govern effectively, are not always compatible. The system now in vogue in France is the majority system of election in single-member constituencies with the traditional double voting or run off elections or the second ballot. After the Second World War, in the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany), list system of Weimar days was given up. The Germans have now instituted two major innovations. First, a party is excluded from all representation if it fails to receive a specified percentage of the total vote. In Bavaria, this percentage is as high as 10 per cent, in others 5 per cent. Obviously such provision deals the death blow to smaller splinter groups. In the second place, the electoral system while excluding smaller parties as above, seeks to combine plurality system (relative majority) and p.r. system by providing that half of the representatives are to be elected by plurality, i.e., relative majority, and the other half on the basis of party lists put forward by each party in each Land. Each Land is given a certain* number of seats to fill. But there is already a growing feeling that this hybrid system should be abandoned in favour of British plurality system with single-member constituencies. The plurality system, as under this hybrid system with the elimination of splinter groups of the electorate of the Federal Republic of Germany, has become increasingly polarized into two dominant parties, the Christian and the Social Democratic with a small Liberal party as in Great Britain. According to one

238


writer the recent emergence of extreme nationalism is also cited as a reason for adopting the British model. In the Irish Republic the single transferable vote system has been in vogue although in 1958 De Valera tried to abolish it; the proposal passed through Irish Parliament but was rejected on a referendum by the people. P.r. is in vogue in Switzerland. It is a complex variant of the list system. P.r. was adopted for election to the Lower House of the Swiss federal legislature in 1919. It has been said that by the "Swiss method an almost mathematical reproduction of the existing views in the community is achieved in the legislative body. The considerable division of parties under this system cannot, however, endanger the conduct of the executive government since the Swiss Executive Council does not feel obliged to resign if the vote in the Legislature is adverse to its recommendations." Of all the countries Belgium appears to be the first country to adopt the p.r. of the list system variety. The voter has to choose one of the several lists presented by the various political parties, each list containing the names of candidates chosen by a party, but at the same time he is entitled to indicate his preference within the list of his choice. In the Netherlands, the p.r. system of the Belgian variety prevails but the whole country is constituted as one single electoral constituency or district. It is noteworthy that both Belgium and Holland have parliamentary system of government with fairly remarkable ministerial stability. The idea of p.r. has been in the air long before Thomas Hare of •England published his book on the subject before 1857. In 1793 the French National Convention considered it without any action. It was elaborated by a French mathematician named Gergonne in 1820 and independently developed by an English school master, Thomas Wright Hill whose son took it to Australia in 1839. In Switzerland Victor Cousiderant proposed p.r. system to the Council of Geneva in 1842. In 1844 Thomas Gidfan prepared another plan for p.r. Then twelve years later in 1856, Carl Andrae, a Danish finance minister worked out a system of p.r. Next year, i.e., in 1857, was published Thomas Hare's book on p.r. J. S. Mill in his Representative Government strongly supported the system. A few years later another man of great ability, insight and experience, Walter Bagehot in his famous book "The English Constitution" equally strongly opposed it. But Mill and Bagehot were both liberals. Mill was a Liberal of the left, Bagehot was a Liberal of the right. Mill was also an ardent individualist and being an individualist he supported p.r. on grounds of reason and justice. Bagehot on the other hand opposed it on an assessment of the true functions of the majority and minority in Parliament. The function of the former is to support the action of the Government, that of the latter is to criticise such action. This dual function of Parliament to support action and to criticise action of Government, enables parliament to represent the whole people. This famous proposition Bagehot propounded in the chapter on the House of Commons in the English Constitution. And this led him to oppose vehemently the p.r.

REFLECTIONS ON THE CHANCE OF ELECTORAL SYSTEM : THE LIST SYSTEM

239

system, although he did admit that the minority party in a constituency may quite often go unrepresented in the House of Commons. He told his readers— "I have myself had a vote for an agricultural county for twenty years, and I am a Liberal; but two Tories have always been returned and all my life will be returned. As matters now stand, my vote is of no use. But if I could combine with 1,000 other Liberals in that and other Conservative counties, we might choose a Liberal member." Bagehot saw a few other advantages too in the p.r. system but the defects which he saw in the system far outweighed the merits. He apprehended and perhaps rightly that the so-called central party organizers would become all powerful bosses and parliament would lose that moderation which every deliberative body, the "Grand Inquest" of the nation is expected to possess. Henry Sidgwick another noted political writer also strongly expressed himself against p.r. In his book "The Elements of Politics" he foregast a Parliament consisting of "Total abstainers, Anti-Vivisectionists, AntiVaccinationists" and so on. This forecast remarkably came true in the German Reichstag under Weimar Republic when an anti-drink party, a war invalids' and survivors' party, a landlords, peasants and winegrowers' league, a Saxon country people's party, etc. contested the Reichstag elections. In France, Esmein foresaw that p.r. would lead to chaos and anarchy. Whatever the variety of the p.r. system—whether it is the single transferable vote system or the list system or any other variety, the central and fundamental idea is the same:—it is to secure a representative assembly reflecting with almost mathematical exactness the opinions of the various segments and divisions of the electorate. We have seen that this system achieves by avoiding waste of the votes of the minority parties and groups. The voicelessness of voters belonging to a minority party or parties is eliminated to a large extent. The difficulties and problems as to delimitation of a large number of single-member constituencies are solved to a great extent because the whole country is divided into a comparatively few very large multi-member constituencies. The danger of gerrymandering also is eliminated to a large extent. But in India gerrymandering in the delimitation of constituencies hardly exists as delimitation is done by an independeat Delimitation Commission according to clear principles and guidelines laid down in law made by Parliament. But these advantages of the p.r. system at what price ? We have seen that the p.r. has been in vogue by and large only in small countries. No big country in the world has adopted it. In France it has been given up wholly and in Germany also it has been given up to a substantial extent. All the countries where it is in vogue today are all small countries—small in size, small in population. Even in some of these countries we often hear criticisms of the system. The system has a strong tendency to lead, and quite often leads, to multiplicity of political parties and groups in Parliament and in practice almost in every country

240


it has led to emergence of a large number of political parties and groups. The inevitable result of this is coalition government with all its attendant evils of instability, failure on the part of the coalition partners to come to an agreed decision on any major policy matter etc. This is specially so where the system of Government is parliamentary as in India. At the time of a national crisis like war and external aggression it may lead to grave national danger even. In peace time a coalition government cannot carry out any programme of national development because serious differences among the members of the coalition may crop up. A coalition government is always a weak government, it is hardly in a position to put any welfare policy into practice because the partners of the coalition are very likely to move in different directions in their approach and attitude. We have seen the sordid effects of coalition governments in our country in a number of States after the 1967-General Elections. Prof. Laski in his Grammar of Politics (1967—5th Edn.) lays down four general tests for a good electoral system— (1) It ought to enable the Legislative Assembly to embody the opinions of the majority and the minority in great issues of public interest; it need not, indeed, if it is to be effective, it cannot embody the total drift of opinion "with effort of mathematical precision; (2) The constituencies which return members must be small enough to enable candidates to be known in a genuine way, so that after election a personal relation develops between the constituents and the elected members; (3) There must be a means between two general elections of checking any drift in public opinion among the voters by the method of bye-elections: (4) Fourthly, the electoral system should be so organized that the voters are as directly related as possible to the Government. They must be able to feel that it is their choice and it is as a government that it will come before them for scrutiny when the term of legislative office expires. He rejected p.r. on these grounds. Then he referred to a number of practical difficulties— (1) Multi-member large- sized constituencies intensify the complexity of choice. In India even single-member parliamentary constituencies will have each an average population of at least a million this time. (2) This will lead to an undue increase in the power of party organizers and bosses in elections. (3) The candidate would become simply an item in the list : electors would vote for him almost entirely on party grounds. The prospect of personal relation between a candidate (and if elected, a member) and his constituents would be completely destroyed in the list system. A voter will only know for which party list he has voted; he scarcely knows any of the candidates in the list. (4) The Government would necessarily be a weak one without that body of support which enables it to execute a great programme.


241

(5) It would be wellnigh impossible to test changes in public opinions by means of bye-elections. (6) The responsibility of the private member would be diminished to a large extent by increasing his sense that whatever his personal effort the party organizers who maintain the list of candidates would be able to ensure his return, if he remains subservient to them. Individual talent and worth would definitely be at a discount. In this way public interest in politics would decline. Citing Prof. Herman Finer, Laski says that even the view that the minority remains unrepresented is not correct. "The horizon of a minority" says Finer, "is not limited by the boundaries of a constituency". The government of a country is not carried on by presenting to the legislative assembly alternatives which be either fully accepted or fully rejected. The process is one of give and take, of compromise. Political decisions for the governance of the country are not made by an arithmetical process of counting votes. Decisions in a democracy are result of debate and discussion on the floor of parliament and the end result is obtained by accommodating the principal views of the opposition parties as far as possible and consistent with the basic principles and policies of the party in power. Carl. J. Friedrich of Harvard University in his book 'Constitutional Government and Democracy' says at pages 305 et seq—"Since proportional 'representation in the long run strengthens, rather than weakens, party, and that means machine control, the bosses return with another rampart added to their fortress. Some cities have tried it, and the results are not encouraging." And he quoted the opinion of an experienced American (Newton D. Baker) about his experiments— "We have groups of all sorts and kinds, formed around religious, racial, language, social and other contentious distinctions. Proportional representation invites these groups to seek to harden and intensify their differences by bringing them into political action where they are irrelevant, if not disturbing. A wise election system would invite them to forget these distracting prejudices." To sum up, the principal defects of the list system appear to me to be as follows :— (1) Multiplicity of political parties without any party having an absolute majority in the legislature and consequent attempts to form coalition government. Coalition government is unstable government. It cannot last long because of its inherent weaknesses. (2) That in its turn leads to an enormous increase in the power of the bureaucracy and to frequent elections at short intervals which tend to exasperate the electorate and they lose interest in politics and elections. It may even lead to the emergence of dictatorship as in fascist Italy or Nazi Germany. (3) Multi-member large constituencies and long lists of candidates produced by the contesting parties destroy the direct relationship between individual candidates and voters. At the next

242

REFLECTIONS ON THE CHANCE OF ELECTORAL SYSTEM : THE LIST SYSTEM

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

delimitation in this country the average population of a singlemember parliamentary constituency will in any case be more than one million. If the constituencies are multi-member constituencies, as they will have to be under the list system, then in a multi-member constituency having, say, at least five members to elect, the average population will be more than five millions and the electorate will be about three millions. How this will work in a vast country like India, it is not easy to imagine. The list system may be regarded as unconstitutional as infringing the provisions of article 81 and article 170 of the Constitution of India—which provide for the election of members of the House of the People and the State Legislative Assemblies by direct election from territorial constituencies. But when voters are asked to choose one of the several lists, the element of directness of election at once seems to vanish; voters will not vote directly for individual candidates, they will vote only for the lists. On this ground alone, the proposal is liable to be rejected. Even scrutiny of nomination papers will be a difficult job. Not only unduly long time will be taken by the returning officers for scrutiny, but what will happen to a list if one or two or more out of several candidates in the list are found disqualified,—will the whole list be rejected or only the names of those found disqualified or not qualified, be omitted from the list and new names substituted in their place. As this may entail more time, the entire time-table of election may be upset and this may even produce a constitutional break down. There will be enormous increase in the powers of the central party organizers and bosses leading to the emergence of bossism in politics which is extremely baneful for the growth of healthy democratic institutions. It may lead to even national disintegration. As Dr. Finer in his book "The Theory and Practice of Modern Government" observes at page 557 "A human tendency may be either promoted or counteracted by an institution. And the separatist mentality is promoted by the automatic list system and counteracted by the single-member majority system." The system is extremely complex. We have seen that even in elections on small scale under the single transferable vote system such as Presidential election, voters who are elected members of the Houses of Parliament and elected members of the State Legislative Assemblies sometimes spoil ballot papers in indicating their preferences and demand fresh ballot papers. I came across such a case in the Presidential election of August, 1969 when polling was going on in the Parliament House. One cannot even imagine what will happen to the ordinary voter in a multi-member constituency which will have

REFLECTIONS ON THE CHANGE OF ELECTORAL SYSTEM , THE LIST SYSTEM

243

an electorate of about three millions. We should not forget that even now about 70 per cent of the people and therefore of the electorate are illiterate. Chaos and confusion are bound to follow at the time of poll and counting. One even shudders at the chaos and confusion which will follow on the polling day at the various polling stations among the voters and polling personnel. Counting too also will be extremely difficult. Mistakes in hundreds are bound to be committed in the process of counting . Then, we should bear in mind that the object of a general election in a parliamentary democracy is not only to constitute a new legislature but also to form a new government. As Laski and other writers have said,— it is not likely that the difficulties and problems of the modern state are such as to be at all seriously remediable by reforms of the electoral machinery. Mainly, those difficulties and problems are moral in character. We shall meet them rather by the elevation of the popular standard of intelligence and the reform of economic system than by making men choose and elect in proportion to the neatly graded volume of opinion. Laski says, that the p.r. system where it has been tried has not noticeably improved the standards of public life. Laski concludes "A State divided into equal electoral districts, each returning one single member to the Legislative Assembly seems therefore to be the general lesson of historic experience." I conclude this topic with what has been stated by a recent German writer (Pro. Karl J. Newman) in his book "European Democracy between the Wars" (1970), page 88— "On the pretext of preventing a 'tyranny of the majority' and protecting the political minority the advocates of proportional representation are really thinking more of the narrower interests of their own group. Once, however, such minority becomes a majority, it is no longer interested in the proportional representation." In support of this view, the writer has cited the authority of George Horwill 'Proportional Representation', London, 1925. Upon all these considerations the clear conclusion seems to emerge that the list system or any other variety of proportional representation will not be the proper electoral system for India to adopt for elections to the House of the People and the State Legislative Assemblies.

CHAPTER XV CONCLUSION 1. "I know no safe depositing of the ultimate power of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough, to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." —Thomas Jefferson to Willian C. Jarvis, Monticello, September 28, 1820. 2. " the study of the causes of poverty is the study of the causes of degradation of a large part of mankind." —Alfred Marshall in his "Principles of Economics", page 2 (8th Edition). We have seen by an analysis of the past elections, specially the Fifth General Elections to the Lok Sabha and to the various State Legislative Assemblies, 1971-72, that by adult suffrage, people of India, the ultimate rulers of this country have started rediscovering themselves and asserting their legitimate rights and claims. They have proved by their act and conduct that mere shibboleths, jargons and high sounding words cannot mislead them unless the ideas contained in those shibboleths, jargons and high sounding words are translated into actuality. But there are two serious roadblocks in their forward movement. The first is the lack of education for a majority of them and the second is their abject economic conditions. Even now more than 71 per cent of the population of this country are illiterate, in spite of the expiry of more than 22 years after the commencement of the Constitution, article 45 of which has laid down the Directive Principles of State Policy for an endeavour to provide within a period of ten years from the commencement of the Constitution for free and compulsory education for all children of the country until they complete the age of fourteen years. Had this endeavour materialised even by this time, then the position of the people of this country would have been vastly different from what it is today. Otherwise it will not be possible for the people to establish their political and economic supremacy because as Karl Marx said as early as in the year 1852 that adult suffrage is essentially and fundamentally a working class doctrine and if adult suffrage is properly and honestly worked, then and only then there is hope that social and economic transformation of the community could be achieved through peaceful and nonviolent means. The other factor which I have already mentioned is the abject poverty of the people. Even now we are told 44 per cent of the people live below the poverty line. That means that about 225 millions of the people 244

CONCLUSION

245

of India live a life of hunger and insecurity. This sordid condition must have to be brought to an end so that the people can live a better and fuller life. Talks about morals and 'dharma' do not appeal to a man whose belly is empty. A hungry man cannot be a religious man. Still it is a great credit to the common man and woman that more often than not they silently suffer hardships and privations without protest. They must be made hunger free as quickly as possible before it its too late. This is why thousands of years ago, the Unpanishad said— "Make wealth as much as you can. That is the vrata (vow) of life." We want food for the body first so that we can have food for the mind and the soul. Bernard Shaw described poverty and its effect in the dialogue between Cusins and Undershaft in his 'Major Barbara' as follows:— "CUS1NS. Do you call poverty a crime? UNDERSHAFT. The worst of crimes. All the other crimes are virtues beside it: all the other dishonours are chivalry itself by comparison. Poverty blights whole cities; spreads horrible pestilences; strikes dead the very souls of all who come withia sight, sound or smell of it. What you call crime is nothing: a murder here and a theft there, a blow now and a curse then: what do they matter? they are only the accidents and illnesses of life: there are not fifty genuine professional criminals in London. But there are millions of poor people, abject people, dirty people, ill fed, ill clothed people. They poison us morally and physically: they kill the happiness of society: they force us to do away with our own liberties and to ©rganize unnatural cruelties for fear they should rise against us and drag us down into their abyss. Only fools fear crime : we all fear poverty. Pah; [turning on Barbara] you talk of your halt-saved ruffian in West Ham: you accuse me of dragging his soul back to perdition. Well, bring him to me here; and I will drag his soul back again to salvation for you. Not by words and dreams; but by thirtyeight shillings a week, a sound house in a handsome street, and a permanent job. In three weeks he will have a fancy waistcoat; in three months. a tall hat and a chapel sitting; before the end of the year he will shake hands with a duchess at a Primrose League meeting, and join the Conservative Party." Economic improvement in man's condition gives him a sense of dignity, self-confidence, honesty and integrity. If education, a liberal educatioa spreads among the people and if their economic lot is improved, then corrupt and evil practices will completely disappear from our electionsthereby making democracy absolutely safe in India. S. P. Sen-Varna., New Delhi, 29th September, 1972. MGIPRRND—See. II [Day]—3 EC/72—29-1-73—2,500.

Report on the Fifth General Elections in India 1971-72: Narrative and Reflective Part

Report on the Second General Elections in India 1957 Volume 1 (General)

Report on the Third General Elections in India 1962 Volume 1 (General)

Report on the Fourth General Elections in India 1967 Volume 1 (General)

Report on the Mid-Term General Elections in India 1968-69 Volume 1 (General)

REPORT ON THE FIRST GENERAL ELECTIONS IN INDIA 1951-52 Volume I

Report on Solar Power in India

Prevention of Reflective Cracking in Pavements (Report)

Report on the Sixth General Elections to the Lok Sabha and General Elections to the Kerala Legislative Assembly 1977 Volume 1

Elections in India: Major Events and New Initiatives 1996-2000

On Narrative

On the Fifth Day

On Parties in General

Reflective Knowledge: Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge

Report on the Nature

Democracy and elections in Africa

Elections and Democratization in Ukraine

The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects

Essays on Population and Space in India

Dennett and Ricoeur on the Narrative Self

On the Agrarian Question in India - 1949

Local Elections in Britain

Fifth Conference on Optimization Techniques. Rome 1973: Part 2

Studies on India and Vietnam

Selves and Identities in Narrative and Discourse (Studies in Narrative)

Report on radiation and the quantum-theory

Physical activity and health: a report of the Surgeon General

Murder on Fifth Avenue

Murder on Fifth Avenue

Free and Fair Elections

Elections and exit polling

Report on the Fifth General Elections in India 1971-72: Narrative and Reflective Part

Report on the Second General Elections in India 1957 Volume 1 (General)

Report on the Third General Elections in India 1962 Volume 1 (General)

Report on the Fourth General Elections in India 1967 Volume 1 (General)

Report on the Mid-Term General Elections in India 1968-69 Volume 1 (General)

REPORT ON THE FIRST GENERAL ELECTIONS IN INDIA 1951-52 Volume I

Report on Solar Power in India

Prevention of Reflective Cracking in Pavements (Report)

Report on the Sixth General Elections to the Lok Sabha and General Elections to the Kerala Legislative Assembly 1977 Volume 1

Elections in India: Major Events and New Initiatives 1996-2000

On Narrative

On the Fifth Day

On Parties in General

Reflective Knowledge: Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge

Report on the Nature

Democracy and elections in Africa

Elections and Democratization in Ukraine

The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects

Essays on Population and Space in India

Dennett and Ricoeur on the Narrative Self

On the Agrarian Question in India - 1949

Local Elections in Britain

Fifth Conference on Optimization Techniques. Rome 1973: Part 2

Studies on India and Vietnam

Selves and Identities in Narrative and Discourse (Studies in Narrative)

Report on radiation and the quantum-theory

Physical activity and health: a report of the Surgeon General

Murder on Fifth Avenue

Murder on Fifth Avenue

Free and Fair Elections

Elections and exit polling

Recommend Documents