|
STATES: ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS
2001
Star Gazing
Jayalalitha banks
on astrology but the EC has to interpret the law to determine her candidature
An astrologer comes
in handy when you are on the J. Jayalalitha campaign trail. The AIADMK
general secretary is a stickler for auspicious timing. On April 18, the
Theni collectorate, which also houses the Andipatty returning officer,
waited all morning for Jayalalitha to come and file her nomination (she
is also contesting from Krishnagiri). Amma herself waited for the auspicious
time, which was between 1.45 and 2.30 p.m.
The collectorate had made all the arrangements:
Returning officer S. Jaya was moved from her small room to a huge hall,
which could accommodate the media, the police and the star candidate's
entourage. The former chief minister entered at 1.50 p.m. After a couple
of last minute clarifications, Jayalalitha signed the papers and looked
up at Malaisamy. The former state election commissioner-now in the inner
circle of Jayalalitha's campaign-nodded, "Auspicious time."
It was 1.55 p.m.
 More
than reading auguries though, Jayalalitha would love to take a peek into
Chief Election Commissioner M.S. Gill's mind. The lady has been convicted
and sentenced to a three-year term in the Tansi land deal case by a special
court. An appeal before the Madras High Court stayed the imprisonment
but not the conviction. Speculation is rife as to whether a convicted
person can be allowed to stand for election.
In the usual course, the Election Commission's
(EC's) views would have been known only on April 24, when the returning
officers are to scrutinise Jayalalitha's nomination papers. That was until
a public-interest petition (PIL) before the Madras High Court got in the
way and made April 20 a sticky date for the EC.
In the petition, a voluntary organisation called
voice asked the EC to ensure that its returning officers implemented its
August 1997 order barring candidature of convicted persons. The order
draws from Section 8 (I), (II) and (III) of the Representation of People
Act (RPA), 1951. It was issued after three high court judgements further
delineated the Act's provisions.
The EC is keen to control criminalisation of
politics. At the same time, it does not want to make it seem that it is
singling out Jayalalitha. "It is up to the returning officers to
decide on the validity of Jayalalitha's papers," says a senior EC
official. "On the ineligibility of convicted persons contesting elections,"
he asserts, "we have nothing to add to our 1997 order."
Actually, after the April 11 Madras High Court
ruling, the commission did and does have a lot to add. Citing precedents,
Justice Malai Subramanium had rejected Jayalalitha's plea to suspend her
conviction and so enable her to contest elections. Even so, the judge
provided her relief by observing that "sentence and conviction were
inseparable" and if sentence had been suspended, conviction could
also be deemed so.
The ruling initially put the EC in a quandary.
The commission had maintained that the staying of a sentence would not
suffice to help a convicted person contest. He or she would have to secure
a stay of conviction too.
Some lawyers contend that the EC cannot stick
to this stand. Says one: "Jayalalitha attracts disqualification under
Section 8 (III) of the RPA, which is applicable to a person who faces
a jail-term of not less than two years. This sub-section deals merely
with the sentence and not conviction. And as her sentence has been suspended,
she should have no problem."
A lawyer-politician cautions the EC, "If
anyone is disqualified at the first conviction, it would be a miscarriage
of justice. The RPA is not very clear whether the conviction should be
final or first. The EC's 1997 order is non est."
Legal circles argue the PIL seeking the court's
interference was never maintainable. Points out a Supreme Court advocate,
"According to Article 329(B) once the election process has been set
in motion, courts have no role to play in election matters." This
article also leaves Amma entirely at the mercy of the EC. If the returning
officers were to reject her papers, the action would not be justiciable.
It must make astrology seem simple business.
—Lakshmi Iyer and Arun Ram
|
METRO TODAY
Web
Exclusives