[list-milapchoraria-03] Issue raised by me in 1985 befoe SC may be impliemented Now by Indian Parliament.

That in considerations of severe atrocities suffered personally based on severe infringement of fundamental rights and also considering the root cause behind such situations, I decided to file Public Interest Litigations, which ultimately will help to protect my own fundamental Rights. As such on 9^th August 1995 I filed a Writ Petition based on Vohra Committee Report against the Union of India and the Election Commission of India as Public Interest Litigation and registered as Writ Petition (Civil) No.559/95 with interalia following prayers: -

i)         ISSUE direction to respondent No. 1 (Union of India) to make appropriate law in compliance of Constitution of India restricting entry of criminals into the politics by participating in the Election process to become the members of Parliament or State Legislative Assembly of any State;

ii)             ISSUE direction to respondent No. 2 (Election Commission of India) to evolve a method to restrict the candidature of a person, facing criminal proceedings in any Court of Law, for the Membership of Parliament or State Legislative Assemblies and after due approval from this Hon'ble Court, impose the same for future elections till the respondent No. 1 makes Law; as prayed for under prayer No. i ) hereinabove.

under paragraph 14 of the Writ Petition interalia I suggested as under:-

a)  No person can contest Election for Parliament or State Assembly, if he is accused in any criminal proceedings and Police prima-facie had satisfied with the complaint by filing charge sheet, till he not discharged or acquitted from such criminal case by a Court of Law;

b)  No person can contest Election for Parliament or State Assembly, unless he declares all the properties and business of his family members, before the Election Commission;

c)   The Members of Parliament and / or State Legislative Assemblies should be defined as Public Servants under all criminal laws.   

on 29^th August 1995 I moved the said Writ Petition in person before the Hon'ble Chief Justice's Court presided by A.M.Ahmadi, C.J. (in my view most dishonest to his Oath under Constitution) as then was, and after hearing the same Hon'ble Court, dismissed the said Writ Petition with observations that Court can't do anything in such matter. But, after few days later Hon'ble Chief Justice's Court presided by A.M.Ahmadi, C.J. as then he was, admitted another Writ Petition based on self-same Vohra Committee Report, registered as Civil Writ Petition No.664/95 filed by Mr. Dinesh Trivedy, then M. P. from Kutch, and moved by some renowned Lawyers of the Supreme Court. Admission of such subsequent Writ Petition was not consistent to prevailing principle of the finality of final order of the Supreme Court. After knowing the fact relates to such admission of another Writ Petitioner, on 1^st December 1995, I filed another Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-18372/95 with prayers interalia that in compliance of clause (4) of Article 32 of the Constitution of India the Jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been seized to dismiss any Writ Petition filed as remedy for enforcement of Fundamental Rights, without hearing on the merit. On 29^th January 1996 said Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-18372/95 was listed for hearing along with the said Civil Writ Petition No. 664/95, Hon'ble Chief Justice's Court presided by A.M.Ahmadi, C.J. as then he was, accepted the argument forwarded by me and observed that they are not dismissing rather disposing off the same by passing judicial order. When the Hon'ble Court was dictating the said order, Learned Mr. Rajiv Dhavan, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court, stood up and wanted to know the fate of Third Writ Petition filed by his client and moved by him, on the same issue, Hon'ble Court observed that all other petitions would face the same fate. Then said Advocate objected it, which was supported by Ld. Mr. Ram Jeth Malani, Sr. Lawyer, than Hon'ble Court observed that in such event Mr. Choraria's Petition would be also heard together with all other Petitions relating to the same matter in issue. But, this subsequent order was not corroborated with the certified copy of the Order of the day. After going through the certified copy of said order, I placed the matter in the notice of the Hon'ble Court by filing another Writ Petition (Civil) D-2595/96 on 12^th February 1996. But, on 11^th March 1996 Hon'ble Chief Justice's Court dismissed the Petition. As a result I was victimized, whereas Shri Dinesh Trivedi, benefited politically due to aforesaid order and now is Union Railway Minister.

That on 20^th March 1996 I filed a Petition before Election Commission of India that in the consideration of Article 324 (1) read with Article 326 of the Constitution "Commission invite following information on oath or affirmation from the intending candidates for such elections to furnish along with nomination papers: -

(a)   Whether any Criminal Proceeding in any Court of law is pending? if yes ; please state:

(i ) Name of the Police Station, within Constituency or outside the Constituency ;

(ii) Number of Crime in respective Police Station?

(iii) Date of Crime according to F.I.R. registered in Police Station ?

(iv) reference of law under which crime is registered ?

(b)   Whether, Charge Sheet is filed by the investigating authority in the above referred Crime Number? If, yes, please state: -

(i)            Name of the Court, in which charge sheet is filed?

(ii)           Number of the Crime Registered in the Court?

(iii)          Date of Charge Sheet?

(iv)          Reference of Law under which Charge Sheet is filed?

(c)   The present status of the proceedings?

(d)   If the Criminal Proceedings are pending more than one, similar informations should be provided in respect of each such proceeding."

Now under Right to Information Act, 2005, Noting of the aforesaid suggestion is found from Judicial File of the Election Commission and subsequently Election Commission issued Letter/Notification No. 509/Disqln./97/J.S.-I/Vol.II dated 6^th January 1998 to all State Electoral Officers, inviting criminal records from the intending candidates, which corroborating aforesaid suggestions.  

 

Those charged with grave crimes may face poll bar

Dhananjay MahapatraDhananjay Mahapatra, TNN | Aug 4, 2011, 03.08AM IST
NEW DELHI: In a big move to keep criminals out of the political arena, the government is planning to amend the law to disqualify those who have been accused of heinous offences and against whom trial courts have framed charges.

If cleared by the Cabinet, the proposal will at once raise the bar for those aspiring to be lawmakers.

The Representation of The People Act in its current form bars only those convicted in criminal cases and sentenced for more than two years. With cases dragging on for decades and long delays in disposal of appeals against convictions, the law leaves a loophole which has been exploited by criminals to enter the legislature.

As a matter of fact, the proposal to be put up shortly before the Union Cabinet, also seeks to bar convicts even if their appeals are pending before higher courts.

Heinous offences listed under the proposal include terror, murder, kidnapping of any form, counterfeiting of stamp paper or currency, sexual assaults against women, offences under the anti-narcotic drugs law and sedition.

The proposal was assembled from the recommendations of former law minister Veerappa Moily.