The health of a democracy depends on the choice of representatives and leaders. This in turn is dependent on the nature of elections. As we have pointed out in our first issue (September 2000), there is much that is wrong with our elections. Criminalization of politics, abuse of unaccounted money, polling irregularities on account of flawed electoral rolls, personation, false voting, rigging and booth capturing, autocratic, unaccountable political parties, and the curse of defections for personal gain—these are some of the more glaring and shameful defects of our electoral system. Beginning with this issue (Nov- Dec 2000), Lok Satta Times is devoting special attention to three facets of elections which are amenable to meaningful citizen intervention—criminalization of politics, electoral rolls and polling irregularities, and new citizen campaign methods including `know your candidate' and common platforms. All these form part of the impressive Election Watch movement designed and implemented by Lok Satta in the Parliamentary and State Assembly elections in 1999 in Andhra Pradesh.

All our concern about governance failure and electoral irregularities gets dissipated unless we can channelize it into concerted action. For effective citizen activism, we need to create strategies and action plans applying precise knowledge as a guide to action. Much of what is wrong can be corrected only by legislative action. But a lot can be accomplished by collective and informed citizen assertion. In any case, the political system which is the beneficiary of a distorted electoral process will not mend it unless there is public pressure. This is the lesson learnt from Lok Satta's Election Watch movement.

Legislative Assembly elections are due in 2001 in five key States _ Assam, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Uttar Pradesh. If activist groups and concerned citizens launch effective Election Watch movements in their respective States prior to and during the elections, it will help focus public attention on the need for electoral reforms. Elections always attract wide public and media attention for obvious reasons. Firstly we all love a contest in which the outcome is uncertain till the end. Whether it is racing or a football or cricket match, or elections, human instinct to predict the outcome, follow the sequence of events, and compare the results with their predictions is a powerful impulse. Secondly, the outcome of elections has a direct bearing on who governs us, and is therefore of immense interest to all people. Finally, we all want fairness and decency in any contest, and any violation of established and well-accepted norms is repulsive to our sense of fair play and decency. This human trait to pay close attention to election contests must be seized by all serious advocates of electoral reforms.

Lok Satta's experience in non-partisan citizen intervention in elections is sought to be conveyed to all serious thinkers and activists for adaptation, improvement,and local application. We all do not need to reinvent the wheel or rediscover fire every time we set out to actively participate in civic life. The experience of others is often a ready guide to our action. An outline of the Election Watch movement, its activities, and outcome with specific regard to decriminalization of politics are given in this issue.

This issue is dedicated to citizen intervention to expose criminalization of politics. There are many serious problems of governance _ corruption, centralization of power, law's delay, arrogance, and arbitrariness, secrecy in government, etc. Then why is criminalization so important? Obviously all elements of governance crisis need to be addressed speedily in order to safeguard public interest. However, criminalization of politics sounds death knell to our democracy, because violence is the ultimate arbiter of power. If violence and criminality are used to silence sane voices, muzzle rational and public-spirited elements, and occupy levers of power, then there is no salvation to the polity. As the Election Commission, in its picturesque language pointed out, if law breakers become law makers, then the people have no hope. If the political process, which should find answers to criminalization in society and promote public order, is itself captured by criminal elements, then the governance is bound to be in shambles. Finally, contrary to popular belief, it is relatively easy to detect and curb criminalization of politics through citizen activism and legislative action.

The Election Commission estimates that one out of every six legislators elected to State Assemblies has a known criminal record. The problem is more acute in certain States like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, but the virus of criminalization is spreading fast all over the country. If one out of the six is actually elected as a law maker, anecdotal evidence and common sense suggest that at least another two or three out of six legislators are elected with the support of mafia gangs and criminal elements.

Obviously the problem has assumed menacing proportions. What is more, all legislative proposals for preventing criminals from contesting have serious limitations. Prohibiting persons who are charged with offences, or those who are listed as history sheeters or rowdy sheeters may lead to abuse of authority and victimization of political opponents. The section outlining Lok Satta's proposals for reform deals with the pros and cons of these legislative measures in detail. The balance of convenience clearly lies in favour of sensible legislative action. Contesting elections is not a fundamental right of citizens. When there is a conflict between society's right to have good representation and the individual's right to contest elections, obviously the society's interests should prevail. But even the best legislation cannot in itself fully ensure decriminalization of politics. There are many grey areas in the criminal justice system. Known crooks and murderers may easily escape the clutches of all, and innocent persons may sometimes be implicated. Therefore total dependence on law is unwise. There is no substitute to citizen's vigilance. Political parties nominate candidates in order to win elections. Each party competes with others to maximize its chances of being elected. If criminal candidates have better prospects at the hustings, then parties tend to nominate them. If, however, effective citizens' initiatives expose the criminal antecedents of candidates, then in time parties will shy away from nominating them. And in any case, without strong public opinion parties will not act to legislate reforms. This is the logic of citizens' assertion through Election Watch.

It must be recognized however that criminals do not contest elections for fun. Thanks to the failure of justice system, there is now a growing market for criminals in society. As law courts can no longer guarantee speedy and efficient dispute resolution, people have started depending on criminal elements for rough and ready justice _ for a price. In time these criminals acquire sufficient money, muscle power and influence to be able to aspire for elective office. And when crime investigation is controlled by partisan politics, it makes sense to control levers of government in order to influence the police functioning. Those criminals who are left out in this race for political power tend to lose out in the competition for dominance. Clearly, the real answer lies in comprehensive judicial reforms to ensure speedy, efficient, accessible and affordable justice to all. This must be combined with insulation of crime investigation from partisan political control, so that elective office can no longer influence prosecution. Every facet of our governance crisis is linked to many other issues. But reform must begin somewhere. The best place to begin is the electoral arena. And the most concerned party which has a stake in improving elections is the citizenry. There is no escape from strong and active citizens' initiatives in the form of Election Watch movements.

The following pages therefore attempt to put the problem in perspective, outline clearly legislative proposals to combat the menace, describe in precise terms the method adopted by Lok Satta to screen candidates for criminal record, and give an assessment of the impact of the citizens' initiative. We hope readers will follow up with effective action in all States where elections are due, and these Election Watch efforts in various states will eventually coalesce into an irresistible national movement for electoral reforms. Needless to add that Lok Satta will be only too happy to provide more information and assist all activist groups in launching Election Watch initiatives in their respective States.

It would appear that public awareness of the nexus between politicians, government functionaries and criminals is fairly widespread. This nexus has been the subject of study by Government-appointed Committees and has been commented upon by prestigious bodies like the Election Commission and the Law Commission and prominent individuals, some of whom have held high office in government. In 1993, in the aftermath of the Bombay blasts, Government appointed a committee (now widely known as the Vohra Committee) under the chairmanship of the then Home Secretary to the Government of India, to look into the activities of crime syndicates/mafia organizations which had developed links with and were protected by government functionaries and political personalities. The nexus between criminals and politicians was seen as a threat to the security of the State. Here is what the Director, Intelligence Bureau had to say before the Vohra Committee:

"Like the Director CBI, DIB has also stated that there has been a rapid spread and growth of criminal gangs, armed senas, drug mafias, smuggling gangs, drug peddlers and economic lobbies in the country which have, over the years, developed an extensive network of contacts with bureaucrats/Government functionaries at the local levels, politicians, media persons, and strategically located individuals in the non-State sector. Some of these Syndicates also have international linkages, including the foreign intelligence agencies. In this context, the DIB has given the following examples:

1. In certain States like Bihar, Haryana and UP, these gangs enjoy the patronage of local level politicians, cutting across party lines, and the protection of Government functionaries.Some political leaders become the leaders of these gangs/armed senas and, over the years, get themselves elected to local bodies, State Assemblies and the national Parliament. Resultantly, such elements have acquired considerable political clout seriously jeopardizing the smooth functioning of the administration and the safety of life and property of the common man, causing a sense of despair and alienation among the people.

2. The big smuggling Syndicates, having international linkages, have spread into and infected the various economic and financial activities, including havala transactions, circulation of black money and operations of a vicious parallel economy causing serious damage to the economic fibre of the country. These Syndicates have acquired substantial financial and muscle power and social respectability and have successfully corrupted the Government machinery at all levels and wield enough influence to make the task of investigating and prosecuting agencies extremely difficult; even the members of the judicial system have not escaped the embrace of the Mafia.

3. Certain elements of the Mafia have shifted to narcotics, drugs and weapon smuggling and established narco-terrorism networks, especially in the States of J&K, Punjab, Gujarat and Maharashtra. The cost of contesting elections has thrown the politician into the lap of these elements and led to a grave compromise by officials of the preventive/detective systems. The virus has spread to almost all centres in the country; the coastal and border States have been particularly affected.

4. The Bombay blast case and the communal riots in Surat and Ahmedabad have demonstrated how the Indian underworld has been exploited by the Pak ISI and the latter's network in the UAE to cause sabotage, subversion and communal tension in various parts of the country. The investigation into the Bombay blast cases has revealed extensive linkages of the underworld in the various governmental agencies, political circles, business sector and film world.

"DIB has stated that the network of the Mafia is virtually running a parallel Government, pushing the State apparatus into irrelevance. It is thus most immediately necessary that an institution is established to effectively deal with the menace."

The above excerpt has been quoted in a recent judgement of the Dehli High Court on a matter of criminalization in politics, with the following comment:

"These are startling and shocking revelations."

The Election Commission has this to say about the criminalization of politics:

"The whole country is now expressing serious concern over the anti-social and criminal elements entering the electoral arena. Even parliament, in the debates on 50 years of independence and the resolution passed in the special session in August 1997, had shown a great deal of concern about the increasing criminalization of politics. It is widely believed that there is a growing nexus between the political parties and anti-social elements, which is leading to the criminalization of politics, where criminals themselves are now joining the election fray and often even getting elected in the process. Some of them have even adorned ministerial berth and thus, law breakers have become law makers"

In the context of rising poll-related violence, the magazine Outlook in consultation with a panel of eminent persons consisting of Justice Kuldeep Singh, former Judge of the Supreme Court, Shri Madhav Godbole, former Union Home Secretary, Shri C. Subhramaniam, and Swami Agnivesh shortlisted 72 candidates with serous criminal charges pending against them. We quote from the cover story of Outlook (Feb 23rd, 1998)

"Outlook compiled a list of 72 such candidates who have criminal proceedings pending against them and, in the opinion of the panel, ought not to contest polls."

It is by no means an exhaustive list. The time between the lists of candidates being released and the first day of polling being so short, and the legwork involved being so laborious, only 500 of the 4693 candidates in the fray could be investigated. The first preliminary list was drawn up after a scrutiny of the candidates. The second with over 150 names was prepared after establishing that FIRs had been registered against the persons who figured. The third and final list comprised those who fit into the stringent criteria laid down by the panel. For instance the list for Madhya Pradesh, which had 15 persons against whom there were chargesheets, and/or FIRs, was whittled down to seven. Some names were dropped for lack of information _ a Bihar minister known to have a long criminal record was excluded, as details of only one case were available.The police and State administration were by and large uncooperative, often as protective of the dubious candidates as the political parties themselves. Superintendents of Police outright refused to part with details, or did not take telephone calls from correspondents once the purpose was stated. At times they attempted to mislead correspondents, giving nominees a clean chit when in fact they were facing criminal charges.

As Justice Kuldeep Singh pointed out, government servants facing criminal proceedings are placed under suspension until cleared by the courts. The same yardstick should apply to politicians, he maintains. When the then Bihar Chief minister, Laloo Prasad Yadav was chargesheeted by the CBI in the fodder scam case, all political parties demanded his resignation. Yet they have given tickets to candidates facing similar or even more serious charges. The Samata Party, for example, has nominated two persons facing multiple chargesheets in murder cases. The Samajwadi Party's Mulayam Singh Yadav, who castigates the media for giving the SP a `goonda party' image, has not baulked at giving tickets to known criminals: Pappu Yadav,Ramakant Yadav and Rajju Maharaj, among others.

The BJP has given tickets to eight persons accused in the Babri Masjid demolition case…. They face criminal charges under Section 153-A of the IPC (promoting enmity between different groups of people on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, etc,) which if upheld, would automatically ensure their being debarred from contesting elections for six years (section 8 RP Act, 1951). And the Congress while denying a ticket to Narashima Rao on the Babri Masjid issue, has nominated Satish Sharma, Bhajan Lal and Balram Jhakar, all of whom have been chargesheeted under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Swami Agnivesh observes that criminalization is a subject of debate but does not figure on the agenda of any party. As Godbole who resigned from service in the wake of the Babri Masjid demolition points out, `a political will is needed and there isn't any'."

More recently as part of the "Election Watch" campaign conducted with reference to the 1999 elections in Andhra Pradesh, Lok Satta screened potential candidates with a criminal background contesting the elections. The screening was done by a committee of eminent persons of irreproachable integrity, including a number of ex-High Court judges, and the strictest norms were applied in determining the criminal record of those scrutinized. A list of such candidates was prepared. This list included persons who have been charged with offences such as murder, bomb blasts, criminal assault, culpable homicide, wrongful confinement etc. Where candidates were put up by recognized political parties, the parties were first asked to withdraw the candidates as being unfit to hold elected office, and when there was no response, a list of 45 candidates, together with the charges against them was made public.

Examples such as these can be multiplied, and many other authorities and prominent people quoted on the criminalization of politics. The point of the matter is, that inspite of widespread awareness of the situation, nothing seems to be done about the matter. In fact the situation is being allowed to deteriorate. Shri S.S. Gill, an ex civil servant, in his book "The Pathology of Corruption" has this to say:

"A matter of most immediate concern to the politician is the winning of an election. Despite the rivers of money that flow during the polls, money alone does not win you elections. Use of violence provides an effective short cut. If you capture a booth or frighten away hostile voters from reaching the polling station, you have moved closer to the goalpost. The way poll violence has spread in India is truly frightening. In the 1957 general elections, repolling was ordered in sixty-five polling booths. The figure rose to 1670 in 1989. In Bihar alone repoll had to be ordered in 1046 booths in 1991 and 1273 in 1996. In the 1984 Lok Sabha elections thirty-three persons were killed The figure rose to 130 in 1989 and 198 in the 1991 Lok Sabha poll. Figures for Assembly elections have also kept pace with this trend, The extent of the rot in Bihar may be gauged from the remark of an MLA. `Unless you have a hundred men with guns you cannot contest elections in Bihar' A minister in Karpoori Thakur's ministry said, `I am honest enough to declare that I keep goondas. For without them it is virtually impossible to win elections.' Earlier poll violence was mostly confined to UP and Bihar. Now it has spread to Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Haryana and other States

...all the political parties (in UP) maintain gangs of criminals. A pre-assembly election report (1996) prepared by a top police official, identified 136 such gangs., fifty-five of which were patronized by political parties. In the UP Assembly elections in 1996 almost 185 of the MLAs had criminal records. Almost 500 of the candidates belonging to almost all mainstream political parties who contested the elections had criminal backgrounds… ..It is common practice in Bihar and UP that winning candidates take out victory processions with scores of their followers carrying unlicenced arms"

1. There are laws to deal with criminals contesting elections and holding elected offices. How then is it that the election process has become a playground for criminals?

2. Why is there no "political will" amongst political parties and MPs across the political spectrum to do anything about the problem, other than paying lip service to the concept of eliminating criminality from politics?

3. Why is the general public so tolerant of the blatant criminalization of the election process that we are witnessing?

1. Under our legal system a criminal is a person who has been convicted of a crime by a court of law. We are all aware of the delays that take place in our judicial system. Not only are there inordinate delays in securing a conviction in a court of law, no less an authority than the Law Commission has this to say:

   "...In this connection, we feel constrained to make certain remarks about the criminal judicial system in this country which has become extremely corrupt at certain levels. In several instances, offences are registered merely with a view to pressurize the persons to pay bribes to the investigating agencies and then the case is closed. The real offenders are quite often left untouched either because they are capable of bribing the investigating agencies or able to pressurize them in various well known ways. So far as the prosecuting agencies are concerned the appointment process of public prosecutors and other prosecutors in criminal courts has also become thoroughly politicized. Appointments are no longer made on the basis of merit but almost exclusively on the basis of political affiliations"

   It is hardly surprising that many persons perceived by the public as criminals and against whom investigations/cases may be pending slip through the legal net and into politics.

2. Regarding the apathy of political parties and politicians, it is hardly surprising that they do little other than mouthing platitudes.. After all they are in many cases the main beneficiaries of the system. Why then should they want to change it? The Delhi High Court in a recent judgement had this to say:

   "...criminals are no longer content with making others win elections but are now contesting elections themselves and the irony of the situation is that those who live by breaking the law are turning into law makers….. It is a dangerous development that does not auger well for the country and the Parliamentary democracy"

   The Grave Danger of Criminalization

   It is here that the greatest danger lurks. The criminal hi-jacking of an election is a negation of democracy. When this is done in a competitive way by contesting candidates, there is no semblance of democracy left. What is worse is that since what ensues in such circumstances is a power struggle between narrow groups to whom the public at large is irrelevant; concern for the public good too becomes irrelevant. Public welfare becomes unimportant. Political ideology becomes a meaningless label. One candidate may win over another, but winning or losing takes on the character of a gang fight. Getting to/staying in power is all that matters. And so we have the sorry spectacle of persons switching parties and loyalties brazenly and shamelessly. Their only purpose is the pursuit of power, and through the exercise of that power, the transference of public wealth into their own pockets and into the pockets of their cronies, and to "hell with the public"

3. And this brings us to the attitude of the general public. Public tolerance is probably due to the fact that people are not quite aware of the implications of an attitude of "to hell with the public" If all energies are directed towards staying in power and accumulating wealth, governance for the good of the people becomes completely irrelevant.

   When this happens, ultimately public disillusionment boils over. Since legitimate ways of throwing out those that are in power are no longer possible, force has to used to uproot them. Strongmen arise, who make promises. Unfortunately history has shown that with the odd exception the strongmen that arise establish their own tyranny; it is amazing how quickly they get corrupted and how venal they become. There are examples of this process all around us _ Pakistan, Indonesia, the Middle East, Latin America...

   The general public are unaware that their tolerance is spelling the death-knell of democracy or that however flawed, democracy is the safest and best system to live under. The alternatives are usually far less efficient, and certainly far less concerned about the welfare, and the rights and liberties of the ordinary individual citizen.

The education of the public and the creation of awareness of the dangers of the process of the criminalization of politics is therefore most urgent. The silver lining is that political parties and politicians have as yet not got completely desensitized to public opinion, as is shown by the statements made frequently by politicians against the prevailing malpractices, though they are not prepared to take any action. If a powerful ground swell of public opinion can be built up, perhaps it is still not too late for the "political will" to be generated. It is however important to realize that each day that passes and allows the criminalization of politics to get more entrenched, will make retrieval of the situation more difficult, until a stage may come when retrieval may become impossible. There is not a moment to lose.

In Andhra Pradesh Lok Satta attempted this task during and prior to the 1999 elections through its "Election Watch" programme, more details of which will be found elsewhere in this issue.

In essence the programme consisted of a number of interlinked modules.

The first area tackled was the authenticity of the voter rolls. When large-scale defects are present in the rolls, impersonation and the casting of bogus votes, involving criminal activity become facilitated. Lok Satta through the action of impartial committees made up of prominent citizens, set up a mechanism to publicize voter rolls and help citizens get them rectified under the provisions of the law as it stands at present.

The second activity was to monitor the actual process of voting through the local committees in each constituency and with the help of an apex committee, bring quickly to the notice of the authorities any malpractices or attempts to subvert the process.

Thirdly the public was encouraged to report, together with proper documentation and evidence, the names of criminals standing for elections. A panel of prominent citizens (which included retired high court judges and civil servants) screened these and a list of candidates with a criminal record was prepared. Where recognized parties put up such candidates, the parties were requested to reconsider their decision to put up such unsuitable candidates. When there was no response from the parties concerned, the names of such candidates was made public, together with the accusations/charges/convictions standing against them.

Lastly, meetings were arranged in which rival candidates were brought together on a common platforms, in public meetings, to face questions put to them in a disciplined, decorous, structured and coherent manner.

The forthcoming elections in a number of important States provide an opportunity to attack the problem of criminalization in politics and to educate the public and build up public opinion against the prevalent malpractices

Responsible citizens and NGOs will undoubtedly have innovative ways in which the problem can be tackled in their respective States. In so far as they would like to draw on the experience of Lok Satta in Andhra Pradesh, they are welcome to get in touch with Lok Satta in person, or through correspondence or the telephone or fax or e-mail. The relevant addresses/numbers, etc. are given on page 9 of this issue.

Lok Satta in turn would be most happy to learn from the ideas and experiences of others.

We reproduce here the operative portion of the judgment of Delhi High Court delivered on 2nd November 2000 in Association for Democratic Reforms Vs Union of India and the Election Commission. (CWPM: 7257 OF 1999 before the Delhi High Court).

"Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court is required to act as a sentinel on the qui vive to guard against the violations of the fundamental rights of the citizens. It is the obligation of this Court to enforce their fundamental rights. In this view of the matter, in discharge of our constitutional duty to enforce the fundamental right guaranteed to the citizens to seek and receive information for casting intelligent and rational votes certain directions need to be given by us. Accordingly, it is directed that the Election Commission shall secure to the voters the following information pertaining to each of the candidates standing for election to the Parliament and to the State Legislatures and the parties they represent :-

1. Whether the candidate is accused of any offence(s) punishable with imprisonment? If so, the details thereof.

2. Assets possessed by a candidate, his or her spouse and dependent relations.

3. Facts giving insight to candidate's competence, capacity and suitability for acting as parliamentarian or legislator including details of his/her educational qualifications.

4. Information which the election commission considers necessary for judging the capacity and capability of the political party fielding the candidate for election to Parliament or the State Legislature.

In order to comply with the aforesaid directions it will be open to the Election Commission to issue directives to the concerned government(s) or department(s), e.g., Central Government, State Government(s), Intelligence Bureau, etc., to render assistance to gather the requisite and relevant information as the Election Commission deems fit and proper and the said authorities shall be duty bound to provide the same. It shall also be incumbent upon a candidate standing for the election to the Parliament or the State Legislature to submit the requisite information at the time of filing of nomination paper with the Election Commission. It is needless to point out that furnishing of false information in the affidavit will result in prosecution of the candidate. It will also be open to the

Election Commission to file complaint against a candidate in a criminal court in case the affidavit contains false information. Non-compliance with the edict(s) issued by the Election Commission pursuant to and in conformity with our aforesaid directions, whether by the concerned Governments/departments or the intending candidates will entail consequences according to law.

We understand that there is a programme being telecast by Doordarshan allowing the political parties to unfold their election manifestoes and plans just before the elections to the Parliament and the State Legislatures. In addition thereto we direct that pre-election debates be held before elections which should be telecast by Doordarshan on its national network in which authorised representatives of the political parties fielding the candidates, present their election manifestoes, programmes, plans and background and capabilities of their candidates, and answer questions posed by the audience relating thereto.

The norms and modalities to carry out and give effect to the aforesaid directions should be drawn up by the Election Commission within four months."

As is apparent, the Delhi High Court's direction regarding collection of information on candidates is limited to pending criminal cases. The Law Commission and the Election Commission, in their reports, have recommended that the candidates against whom criminal charges have been framed by a magistrate (pertaining to cases listed under Sec 8, 8A and 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951) should be disqualified until they are cleared of the charges. This raises the important question of whether a candidate can be denied the opportunity to contest on the mere ground of charges having been framed. It must be understood that the reference to framing of charges applies only to a magistrate's orders after a prima facie case has been made out in a preliminary hearing or after taking into account the evidence available. In other words, there has been application of the judicial mind in framing charges.

It is true that only about 6% of criminal cases actually end in conviction. Therefore, at first sight it seems unfair to deny the 94% of the accused, who might, at a later date be acquitted. Most prosecutions fail on account of lack of evidence and incapacity to produce witnesses. In turn this is because the witnesses are bribed or coerced either not to appear or not to tell the truth. Police inefficiency, excessive case overload, archaic procedures and overburdening of the judiciary make it difficult to get most criminals convicted. Added to this the endless political interference in crime investigation and prosecution makes it virtually impossible to convict influential persons.

Given these circumstances, it is obviously necessary to prevent persons charged with offences from contesting until they are acquitted. Then there is the larger philosophical question of whether we can deviate from the well-established judicial norm that a person must be held innocent until proven guilty. This is a valid dictum with regard to imposition of any penalty or punishment. But denial of right to contest is no punishment. As explained in the editorial, the right to contest is not a fundamental right. When you juxtapose the people's democratic right to have good representation and the individual's right to represent the public, the former must obviously take precedence over the latter. Therefore the Law Commission and Election Commission recommendation, and the judgment of the Delhi High Court are fully in consonance with established and accepted democratic principles.

This still leaves the question of unfair disqualification of innocent persons facing trumped up charges based on concocted evidence unanswered. Even application of judicial mind in framing charges may not be a sufficient safeguard in such politically motivated cases.

However, we have to recognize that in any legal framework there have to be certain reasonable standards with uniform and objective application, and there can never be absolute certainty about a person's guilt. There are cases of conviction, which are set aside on appeal. There are known cases of innocent persons having been found guilty of capital offences and executed. If we wish to apply exacting standards, we should offences? It is common knowledge that many notorious criminals are not charged with any offence, or are often acquitted for want of evidence. But their criminal conduct and violent ways are matters of public record. We have a system of maintaining rowdy sheets and history sheets. The details of how these records are opened, the criteria for maintaining them are given on page 12 of this issue. As can be seen, these criteria are well laid down and objective. It can be said with a fair degree of accuracy that a far higher percentage of history sheeters and rowdy sheeters actually indulge in criminal behaviour on a sustained basis, compared to those charged with an offence. There are also far fewer cases of innocent persons wrongly labeled as history sheeters or rowdy sheeters, as opposed to the frequent implication of innocent persons and political opponents in false criminal cases.

Lok Satta therefore advocates that the information collected from candidates should specifically include whether he/she is listed in any police station as a rowdy sheeter, history sheeter etc. and the details thereof. Regarding disqualification of such candidates, Lok Satta's proposals endorse the suggestion, but with a safeguard. To eliminate the risk of political manipulation, a provision can be made for judicial determination of the fairness of police records at the level of the Sessions Judge. All intending candidates who are listed as rowdy sheeters can have access to this judicial remedy with time-bound decision guaranteed by statute.

Ph: 040-23350778/23350790                                               E-mail: loksatta@satyam.net.in 

Fax: 040-23350783                                                                      fonderf@hd1.vsnl.net.in 
                                                                                      www.loksatta.org 

   

1. Sections 8, 8A and 9 of RP Act, 1951 provide for disqualification of persons convicted of specified offences. The list is comprehensive and reasonable.

2. The provisions obviously failed to achieve the desired result. The Election Commission pointed out that more than 700 of the 4092 legislators at state level have criminal record against them.

3. Lok Satta released a list of 45 candidates, most of them nominated by major parties in Andhra Pradesh in the general election for Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha in 1999. The names of about 20 more persons with suspected criminal record could not be revealed for want of verifiable evidence. With the backing of major political parties, several of them were elected. Several citizens' initiatives made similar efforts elsewhere.

4. Section 8(4) of RP Act, 1951 gives a grace period of three months to incumbent legislators before disqualification comes into effect in case they are convicted of an offence, or if an appeal is filed within three months, until the appeal is disposed of by the court. Unfortunately this provision was misinterpreted by election officials consistently until 1997, and any candidate, who had been convicted but filed an appeal, was exempted from disqualification until the appeal was disposed of. The Election Commission gave guidelines in 1997 effectively closing this loophole.

1. Many known criminals are still in the electoral fray and often get elected. The problem is getting worse with successive elections.

2. The conviction rate in criminal cases is a pitiful 5-6%

3. Disposal of criminal cases is excruciatingly slow, and most cases take years to dispose of. Technically, the murderers of Rajiv Gandhi were perfectly free to contest elections in India for 7 years after the dastardly crime until 1998 when they were finally convicted, provided they are Indian citizens and are otherwise eligible. This obviously is an unacceptable situation.

4. If the persons facing criminal prosecution are disqualified indiscriminately, there is a real danger of trumped up charges against political opponents. This is particularly likely in a system in which police function directly under the control of the government, and the government has specific powers to withdraw prosecution, order investigation and grant parole and pardon.

5. Mafia dons and organised gangs often escape even prosecution for want of tangible evidence.

6. There are rowdy sheets and history sheets opened by the police against certain individuals with criminal record. Annexure_1 gives the criteria applicable in Andhra Pradesh. However, if they are solely relied upon to disqualify a candidate, there is danger of misuse of such powers.

7. The period of disqualification under RP Act 1951 for conviction varies with the offence, and this variation does not always seem to have a rational basis. Annexure_2 gives a table indicating the offence and the period of disqualification.

8. While the list of offences under Sections 8,8A and 9 of RP Act 1951 is fairly large and comprehensive, certain offences seem to have been left out. Annexure_3 gives an illustrative list of offences, conviction for which should incur disqualification as recommended by the Law Commission.

1. The anomalies in respect of period of disqualification may be corrected broadly in line with the recommendations of the Law Commission.

2. The punishments for certain offences should be altered, and certain new offences should be included, so that there are more rational criteria for disqualification of candidates as proposed by the Law Commission. The list should include conviction for corrupt electoral practices under section 99 of RP Act, 1951

3. Any person against whom criminal charges are framed by a magistrate for any offence listed under section 8 of RP Act 1951 or any warrant case should be disqualified to contest in elections as long as charges are pending against him/her.

4. Any person in respect of whom a History sheet or a Rowdy sheet or a similar record by whatever name it is called, has been opened and is kept open in any police station within the Indian union in accordance with the provisions of the appropriate laws or police standing orders, should be disqualified as long as such History sheet or Rowdy sheet is kept open.

   In order to ensure that there is no misuse of this provision to harass political opponents, a safeguard should be provided in the form of judicial scrutiny. Any person who is aggrieved by the opening of History sheet or Rowdy sheet and who wishes to contest the election may appeal to the Sessions Judge at least two months before the date of election notification, and thereupon the Sessions Judge shall hold a summary enquiry and decide within a month whether or not the opening of such History sheet or Rowdy sheet is valid. The order of the Sessions Judge shall be binding on the police authorities.

5. Every candidate for an elective office shall file at the time of nomination before the Returning Officer an Affidavit in Annexure_4. The nomination of those persons who do not file such an Affidavit shall be rejected.

   If any misleading or incorrect information is furnished in the Affidavit, or if any facts are concealed, such a person shall be disqualified for a period of, say twelve years. In case such a person has been already elected, his election stands nullified and he shall be disqualified for twelve years. In such cases a complaint shall be filed before the Election Commission, whereupon the Commission shall issue notices to the complainant and the candidate and after summary enquiry give its decision within 90 days from the date of complaint. The decision of the Election Commission shall be final and binding.

6. Similar disqualification provisions should be incorporated in respect of elections to local governments.

Note: A few critics have expressed the concern that decriminalization efforts might inadvertently hurt the interests of the dalits and backward classes. Given the power-centered nature of our society and the iniquitous nature of our polity, there is always the danger of influential sections manipulating the system in their favour and marginalising disadvantaged sections. Also often the so called upper castes may remain in the back ground and use the dalits and OBCs as canon fodder to execute crimes, thus escaping disqualification.

However, empirical evidence shows that criminalization of politics is not the monopoly of any caste group. In fact, there are more organised criminal gangs with political connections among the so called upper castes. When criminal record of candidates is carefully compiled, there are more upper caste candidates with such a record. Also once disqualification is applicable to all crimes _ violent as well as white-collared _ there is greater probability of the provisions being applicable to all sections equitably. For instance if wilful defaulters of bank loans are disqualified, there is greater chance of influential sections being made accountable.

There are other concerns expressed about the fairness of disqualification of candidates facing criminal charges or those listed as rowdy sheeters etc.

Firstly only charges framed by a magistrate in warrant cases after prima facie enquiry are included. Once there is judicial application of mind, it acts as a reasonable safeguard to protect individual interest.

Secondly, there have to be certain reasonable standards with uniform and objective application, and there can never be absolute certainty about a person's guilt. There are cases of conviction which are set aside on appeal. There are known cases of innocent persons having been found guilty of capital offences and executed. If we wish to apply exacting standards, we should wait until the final appeal is heard, which obviously defeats the objective of decriminalization of politics.

Thirdly, there are fears that police records about rowdy sheeters etc could be highly subjective and arbitrary. In fact, the criteria for opening such records are well laid down and are objective. To eliminate the risk of political manipulation, a provision is made for judicial determination of the fairness of the police records at the level of the Sessions Judge.

Fourthly, when there is a clash between the society's right to have fair and proper representation in legislatures and the individual's right to represent the people, clearly society's rights take precedence over individual right. The right to contest elections is not a fundamental right. The harm done by denying an occasional innocent person a chance to contest is much less than allowing a criminal to be elected. In fact the balance today has swung against decent citizens in elections, and this distortion ought to be corrected.

Fifthly, these proposals are meant to reduce the role of criminals in politics, and cannot in themselves be adequate to eliminate the flaws and distortions in the criminal justice systm. That

Descriptions of Persons or How Convicted                                Number of Times Convicted

requires a different, and far-reaching reform effort. However, the failure to reform the criminal justice system cannot militate reform of the electoral system. Electoral reform is central to the fairness of representation and health of a democracy.

Finally, when there is overwhelming distortion in electoral politics, and money power and criminal involvement have come to dominate elections, effective and far-reaching reforms are required to safeguard public interest. Tentative and half-hearted reforms will fail to cleanse our political and electoral system.

1. Law Commission proposes certain amendments to RP Act, 1951. To quote the report, "major proposal put forward relates to amendment of section 8 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 which, as it now stands, provides for disqualification on the ground of conviction for certain named offences. It is well known that mafia leaders and leaders or members of criminal gangs rarely get convicted by courts. The reasons for this phenomenon are well known, the foremost among them being the unwillingness of the witnesses to come forward and depose for fear of reprisals from the accused. It is accordingly proposed that even if charges are framed under any of the offences mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 8, it would be sufficient to attract the disqualification. In other words, a conviction for the offences mentioned in sub-section (1) is not necessary; if the charges are framed by the court under any of those offences, it would be sufficient to attract the disqualification for section 8. For this purpose, several measures have to be adopted, namely,

   1. Shifting the offences under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 from sub-section (1) of section 8 to sub-section (2) thereof. This is for the reason that in the opinion of the Commission it is not advisable to increase the punishment provided by the provisions of the Civil Rights Act to three years (in which case alone it would become a warrant case, requiring the framing of charges).

   2. It is suggested that the punishment under sections 171E and 171F should be enhanced to three years in addition to fine in place of the existing punishment of one year or fine or both. It is also suggested that offences under sections 171G, 171H and 171I of the Indian Penal Code should not only be included in clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 8, but the punishment under the said three sections should also be enhanced to three years in addition to fine. It may be mentioned that all the offences mentioned under sections 171E to 171I are offences relating to elections. These provisions were added by chapter IXA introduced in the IPC by Amendment Act 39 of 1970. Over the years, we have seen that these offences are on rise and are becoming more widespread, and more serious. To counteract this trend, it is necessary to enhance the punishment under the aforesaid sections so as to make the procedure relating to warrant cases applicable in all such cases. It may be mentioned that in cases triable as warrant cases, the framing of charges is obligatory (unless of course the accused is discharged) whereas in case of offences triable according to summons procedure, framing of the charges is optional with the court. Once the procedure for warrant cases is attracted and charges are framed in respect of specified offences, the accused person would be disqualified under section 8 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. Necessary Amendment Bill for this purpose is appended herewith as IPC (Amendment) Bill.

   3. Similarly, the punishment under sections 135, 135A and 136(2) of the Representation of the People Act is also proposed to be enhanced to three years. These offences pertain to removal of ballot papers from polling stations, booth capturing and fraudulently defacing or destroying nomination papers. They too are election offences and deserve to be treated on par with, if not more severely than, the offences mentioned in Chapter IXA of the Indian penal Code." (Pages 20 to 23 of Working Paper on Reform of the Electoral Laws, September 1998)

2. The detailed Amendments to various Sections of the RP Act, 1951
   Amendment of Section 8:

   1. In section 8 of the Principal Act, for the existing title, the following title shall be substituted:
      "Sec. 8 Disqualification for certain offences.

   2. For sub-sections (1) and (2), the following sub-sections shall be substituted:

      1. A person against whom charge has been framed under, or who has been convicted of an offence punishable under_

         1. Section 153A or section 171E or Section 171F or section 171G or section 171H or section 171I or sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 376 or section 376A or section 376B or section 376C or section 376D or section 498A or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 505 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860); or

         2. Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962); or

         3. Sections 10 to 12 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967); or

         4. The Foreign Exchange (Regulation) Act, 1973 (46 of 1973); or

         5. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985); or

         6. Section 3 or section 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or

         7. Section 7 of the Religious Institutions (prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 (41 of 1988); or

         8. Section 125 or section 135 or section 135 A or sub-section (2) or section 136 of this Act, shall be disqualified for a period of twelve years from the date of framing of such charge or such conviction as the case may be.

         1. A person convicted for the contravention of _

         2. any law providing for the preventing of hoarding or profiteering; or

         3. any law relating to the adulteration of food or drugs; or

         4. any provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961); or

         5. any provisions of the Commission or Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 (3 of 1987); or

         6. the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (22 of 1955); or

         7. any provisions of the Prevention of the Insults to National Honour Act, 1971

            And sentenced to imprisonment for not less than six months shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release." (Pages 46-48)

3. Amendments to Chapter IXA of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

In chapter IXA of the Indian Penal Code, for sections 171E, 171F, 171G, 171H and 171I, the following sections shall be substituted:

171E Punishment for bribery _ Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

171F Punishment for undue influence or personation at an election _ Whoever commits the offence of undue influence of personation at an election shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

171G False statement in connection with an election _ Whoever with intent to affect the result of an election makes or publishes any statement purporting to be a statement of fact which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

171H Illegal payments in connection with an election _ Whoever without the general or special authority in writing of a candidate incurs or authorises expenses on account of the holding of any public meeting, or upon any advertisement, circular or publication, or in any other way whatsoever for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of such candidate shall be punished with imprisonment of either description which may extend to three years and fine which may extend to five hundred rupees.

Provided that if any person having incurred any such expenses not exceeding the amount of ten rupees without authority obtains within ten days from the date on which such expenses were incurred, the approval in writing of the candidate, he shall be deemed to have incurred such expenses with the authority of the candidate.

171I Failure to keep election accounts_Whoever being required by any law for the time being in force of any rule having the force of law to keep accounts of expenses incurred at or in connection with an election fails to keep such accounts shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

171J Exceeding the prescribed limit of election expenses _ Any candidate whose expenditure on election exceeds the amount prescribed under sub-section (3) of section 77, of R.P. Act 1951 shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. (Pages 73-75 of Reform of the Electoral Laws _ working paper by Law Commission of India-Sept. 1998).

Election Watch is an awareness building programme sponsored by Lok Satta. Lok Satta had organized a highly successful Election Watch during the 1998 parliamentary election. Common platforms were organized in 35 parliamentary constituencies across the state of Andhra Pradesh, with wide public participation and intense media coverage. "Know your candidate" and "Enroll and Vote campaign" were launched effectively. In the light of that experience, Election Watch 99 had been chalked out with more clarity and precision on a much larger scale throughout the state.

As part of the Election Watch campaign, Lok Satta prepared a comprehensive Election Watch manual outlining all the proposed activities and presenting information about the election process in easy-to-understand language. We distributed 40,000 copies of the manual across the State to our local groups and volunteers.

Political parties have become autocratic, leaving the members no role in selection of candidates. Hoodlums and criminals are entering politics to secure their ill-gotten wealth and shield their crimes. Politics has indeed become the last refuge of the scoundrel. The law abiding citizens have become cynical about any improvement in the political process and have become increasingly indifferent. Democracy cannot be meaningful without citizens' involvement. Vigilance is the price of democracy and only an involved citizen can be vigilant. As Eleanor Roosevelt said "Nobody can hurt you without your consent"; it can also be said that Nobody can marginalize you without your cooperation. Our Election Watch programme was primarily aimed at enlightening and empowering the citizen to gradually bring about a difference in the tone and tenor of the elections. The aims of Election Watch 1999 were:

To promote voter awareness and participation

To ensure better and informed choice of candidates

To improve the quality of public debate

To focus attention on the need for key governance reforms

To monitor and improve the polling process

Keeping in view the Legislative Assembly Elections of October 1999, a nine-month programme was chalked out to cover Assembly constituencies in all 23 districts of Andhra Pradesh. A broad based State Election Watch committee with a hands-on core group was constituted to guide and monitor the Election Watch activities. Election Watch committees, constituting credible non-partisan citizens from various walks of life, were formed in all participating districts. The following activities were taken up :

1. Verification of electoral rolls to ensure enrolment of eligible voters and deletion of ineligible and bogus names.

2. Prescreening of prospective party candidates in order to bring pressure on parties not to nominate those with corrupt and criminal antecedents.

3. Pressure on parties to select candidates through democratic process according to members' choice.

4. `Go out and vote' campaign

5. Campaign for simple reforms in electoral process at the Election Commission level

   1. completion of distribution of voter identity cards and making them mandatory for voting

   2. universal electronic voting

   3. mandatory re-polling if tendered votes (proof of bogus voting) exceed a fixed number or percentage in a polling booth

6. Campaign for common electoral rolls for local government elections and Assembly and Parliament elections.

7. `Know Your Candidate' _ collection and wide dissemination of information on party candidates _ including their political history, antecedents, finances, views etc.

8. Common platforms for public debates at the constituency level to improve the quality of debate and facilitate informed choice.

9. Citizens' monitoring of polling process to check malpractices.

   Training of Volunteers

   Lok Satta started off by conducting a `Train the Trainers' programme in Hyderabad, during which key volunteers from various districts were given detailed instruction on the training programme. The trainers in turn conducted training camps in their respective districts. More than 10,000 volunteers were trained; a majority of them responded to advertisements in the local media. The training was based on two documents -_the Election Watch Manual outlining all the citizen interventions, and the People's Charter containing the precise knowledge capsules on various public services as a guide to collective assertion. The volunteers were trained in all Election Watch activities, in particular, verification of electoral rolls; inclusion and deletion of names in voters lists; `know your candidate' programme; screening of candidates for criminal record; common platforms; and monitoring of polling. Appropriate forms for voter verification were supplied to volunteers. The volunteers were also trained to answer the most frequently asked questions about the electoral process, tendered voting procedure, and so on.

   Verification of Electoral Rolls

   Getting the citizens involved was our first objective, since we firmly believe that no reform in favour of people is possible without their participation. It was important to design a programme of involvement and awareness nurturing each other.

   Lok Satta chose verification of the electoral rolls as its opening activity as we felt that checking out the voters' list for their names is something that ordinary citizens can relate to easily. With people's active participation, this verification of names could be achieved at the local level itself. Verification of electoral rolls also has a direct bearing on fair elections and good governance.

   The simple procedure of getting the people to examine the electoral rolls and finding their names and those of their family members and neighbours gives the people a sense of participation and involvement. More over, being very much a part of the locality, they can all help in updating of information regarding those who have moved away from the neighbourhood or died. Lok Satta's role in this effort is aimed at bridging the knowledge gap (about the enrolment process) and to act as a facilitator in the over-all verification effort.

   This process involved procurement of electoral rolls of constituencies and printing and supplying of Form 6 (for inclusion of name) and 8B (for deletion of name) to the district committees. In neighbourhoods with strong volunteer units, volunteers and residents worked together in the verification process. (Electoral rolls are available to all citizens at MRO's offices, at Municipal offices and may be purchased for a price of Rs.0.95/- per page or Rs.1.35/- for 2 pages). Forms 6 and 8B were however subsequently revised and in the name of simplification made very lengthy and complex by the Election Commission.

   Election Commission's programme of special revision of electoral rolls in April and May 1999 was complemented by Lok Satta's team of volunteers. During the special revision the following irregularities were reported :

   Late arrival and early departure of staff at designated centres

   Non-availability of forms

   Non-availability of acknowledgment forms

   Refusal to supply forms to citizens on grounds of residence in another area

   Insistence on furnishing details of neighbours etc.

   Long queues due to shortage of counters

   Acceptance of claims from minors

   Allocation of voters to wrong or far away polling booths

   Retention of names of dead persons or migrants

   Ambiguity about location of designated centres

   The irregularities noted and reported by our volunteers were very well received and attended to by the office of the Election Commission. Our volunteers assisted the citizens in filling out forms and in many instances supplied the forms (where the EC failed).

   Lok Satta printed and supplied nearly 5 lakh forms across the State and succeeded in directly enrolling approximately 6 lakh voters and deleting another 4 lakh voters from the rolls (the most acceptable and effective source for deletion of names proved to be the death register). In one instance we uncovered a person's name on the rolls, who died 50 years ago!! About 2200 volunteers across the state participated in the electoral rolls verification process, yielding positive results. But this still fell far short of complete success.

   Our sample surveys show that the errors in electoral rolls are 30-40% in urban areas and about 10% in rural areas. Cleansing of electoral rolls requires nothing short of sustained massive mobilization of the public and simplifying the procedure making the post office the nodal agency for voter registration.

   Screening of Candidates

   As long as money, muscle and criminals are the factors in winning elections, democracy is a farce and elections are meaningless. Our second activity was to see that the people get involved in the screening of potential candidates that the political parties would field on their behalf .

   We prepared and displayed public service messages in all mainstream media ( TV, Radio, Cinema Theatres and Newspapers) asking people to come forward with specific allegations along with verifiable evidence (such as history sheet, rowdy sheet or charge sheet) against any potential candidate. We ensured complete confidentiality to the reporting public and asked them to write to Post Box No. 100 (easy to remember). A proforma eliciting a four part response from the public was publicised _ ì) personal details (optional _ excepting for constituency) of the informant; ii) details of the candidate; iii) his/her criminal record iv) along with supporting evidence. (Please see the manual adopted for screening of candidates, published in this issue pages 23, 24 and 25.)

   The massive media campaign planned had to be down-sized due to financial constraints. However with enthusiastic volunteer support we were able to produce three short films for TV (Gemini and ETV _ the State wide channels) and the theatres highlighting the undesirable profile of many potential candidates; and how we the public can prevent such elements from becoming our representatives in government. Paper advertisements across the State in popular dailies (Vaartha, Eenadu, Hindu and Hindi Milap) sought from the citizens valuable information regarding potential candidates with criminal records. The response had been very encouraging. Although we were far from achieving our goals, it is heartening that quite a few potential candidates with criminal records had been dropped from active consideration though the sure winners were still retained.

   This campaign against criminalization of politics evoked a very enthusiastic response from all sections of the public throughout the State. The issue had been brought into sharp focus by Lok Satta's campaign in every village and hamlet of the State and there was intense debate on the role of criminals in politics. Lok Satta received over 2500 responses from the public (addressed to P.O.Box No.100, Hyderabad-500 004). About 10-15 % of these contained specific information regarding criminal antecedents of potential candidates. As a result of the campaign, all major parties in the state were forced on the defensive and compelled to publicly declare that they will weed out criminals from their ranks.

   A twenty member screening committee was formed to scrutinize impartially and judicially the confidential information received from the public and activists from all over the State about such undesirable potential candidates.

   Initially we thought of screening the candidates at the local level itself but resource constraint and the possibility of intimidation forced us to take it up only at the State level. Justice Lakshmana Rao, former chief justice of Allahabad and Andhra Pradesh High Courts, Mr.K.R.Venugopal, former secretary to the prime minister, Mr.Narendra Luther, former chief secretary to the govt. of A.P. along with other eminent personalities were part of the screening committee giving active leadership and full support. Mr.T.N.Seshan, the former chief election commissioner, Mr.N.N.Vohra, the author of the Vohra Report, lent their names and gave their guidance and support to the screening process..

   The criteria for scrutiny and suggested disqualification could be any of the following:

   Criminal Record

   1. Conviction for offences listed under sections 8, 8A and 9 of Representation of the People Act, 1951.

   2. Charges framed by a competent court after preliminary inquiry _ in respect of offences listed under sections 8 and 8A of RP Act, 1951 _ until they are acquitted.

   3. History sheets opened against convicted persons under S.O 733, 734 and 736 of A.P.Police Standing Orders.

   4. Rowdy Sheets opened against persons classified as rowdies under S.O. 742 of A.P.Police Standing Orders.

   After careful scrutiny of the potential candidates' criminal record, information was confidentially sent to the respective political parties with a request not to nominate them as candidates. But despite this verifiable record of criminal antecedents, the parties chose to ignore it. Several persons against whom incriminating information was sent to the political parties were actually fielded as candidates. Lok Satta, once again thoroughly scrutinized the information available in respect of each candidate, and cross-checked it through various official agencies, media, and other sources. Finally a list of 45 candidates against whom verifiable criminal record existed was released to the public and media.

   The release of the list of candidates with criminal record created a sensation in the State and across the country, and ignited popular imagination. It led to wide public debate and all round condemnation of criminalizaton of politics. Political parties were forced on the defensive. This painstaking and judicious procedure did pay handsome dividends to the public, and it helped fashion a powerful tool in the hands of civil society to combat criminalization of politics.

   Limitations

   This campaign had certain obvious limitations

   1. As there was no right to information available to citizens, it was hard to obtain evidence from official sources.

   2. There was no cooperation from the police and intelligence officials. In a few cases, the local police did give confidentially some information of value. But in general the records pertaining to rowdy sheeters and history sheeters and even details of charges pending against candidates were not officially made available.

   3. All political parties were asked to give information relating to their opponents, but no party responded.

   4. It is possible that a few of the candidates named were innocent and were falsely charged. Lok Satta could only scrutinize the available information applying uniform and objective criteria, and release the list to the public.

   5. It is almost certain that the names of another 20 candidates widely believed to be involved in crime and violence could not be released for want of credible and verifiable information, or on account of

   The massive media campaign planned had to be down-sized due to financial constraints. However with enthusiastic volunteer support we were able to produce three short films for TV (Gemini and ETV _ the State wide channels) and the theatres highlighting the undesirable profile of many potential candidates; and how we the public can prevent such elements from becoming our representatives in government. Paper advertisements across the State in popular dailies (Vaartha, Eenadu, Hindu and Hindi Milap) sought from the citizens valuable information regarding potential candidates with criminal records. The response had been very encouraging. Although we were far from achieving our goals, it is heartening that quite a few potential candidates with criminal records had been dropped from active consideration though the sure winners were still retained.

   This campaign against criminalization of politics evoked a very enthusiastic response from all sections of the public throughout the State. The issue had been brought into sharp focus by Lok Satta's campaign in every village and hamlet of the State and there was intense debate on the role of criminals in politics. Lok Satta received over 2500 responses from the public (addressed to P.O.Box No.100, Hyderabad-500 004). About 10-15 % of these contained specific information regarding criminal antecedents of potential candidates. As a result of the campaign, all major parties in the state were forced on the defensive and compelled to publicly declare that they will weed out criminals from their ranks.

   A twenty member screening committee was formed to scrutinize impartially and judicially the confidential information received from the public and activists from all over the State about such undesirable potential candidates.

   Initially we thought of screening the candidates at the local level itself but resource constraint and the possibility of intimidation forced us to take it up only at the State level. Justice Lakshmana Rao, former chief justice of Allahabad and Andhra Pradesh High Courts, Mr.K.R.Venugopal, former secretary to the prime minister, Mr.Narendra Luther, former chief secretary to the govt. of A.P. along with other eminent personalities were part of the screening committee giving active leadership and full support. Mr.T.N.Seshan, the former chief election commissioner, Mr.N.N.Vohra, the author of the Vohra Report, lent their names and gave their guidance and support to the screening process..

   The criteria for scrutiny and suggested disqualification could be any of the following:

   Criminal Record

   1. Conviction for offences listed under sections 8, 8A and 9 of Representation of the People Act, 1951.

   2. Charges framed by a competent court after preliminary inquiry _ in respect of offences listed under sections 8 and 8A of RP Act, 1951 _ until they are acquitted.

   3. History sheets opened against convicted persons under S.O 733, 734 and 736 of A.P.Police Standing Orders.

   4. Rowdy Sheets opened against persons classified as rowdies under S.O. 742 of A.P.Police Standing Orders.

   5. After careful scrutiny of the potential candidates' criminal record, information was confidentially sent to the respective political parties with a request not to nominate them as candidates. But despite this verifiable record of criminal antecedents, the parties chose to ignore it. Several persons against whom incriminating information was sent to the political parties were actually fielded as candidates. Lok Satta, once again thoroughly scrutinized the information available in respect of each candidate, and cross-checked it through various official agencies, media, and other sources. Finally a list of 45 candidates against whom verifiable criminal record existed was released to the public and media.

   6. The release of the list of candidates with criminal record created a sensation in the State and across the country, and ignited popular imagination. It led to wide public debate and all round condemnation of criminalizaton of politics. Political parties were forced on the defensive. This painstaking and judicious procedure did pay handsome dividends to the public, and it helped fashion a powerful tool in the hands of civil society to combat criminalization of politics.

   Limitations

   This campaign had certain obvious limitations

   1. As there was no right to information available to citizens, it was hard to obtain evidence from official sources.

   2. There was no cooperation from the police and intelligence officials. In a few cases, the local police did give confidentially some information of value. But in general the records pertaining to rowdy sheeters and history sheeters and even details of charges pending against candidates were not officially made available.

   3. All political parties were asked to give information relating to their opponents, but no party responded.

   4. It is possible that a few of the candidates named were innocent and were falsely charged. Lok Satta could only scrutinize the available information applying uniform and objective criteria, and release the list to the public.

   5. It is almost certain that the names of another 20 candidates widely believed to be involved in crime and violence could not be released for want of credible and verifiable information, or on account of absence of any record as per the uniform standards set by Lok Satta.

   6. Several of the candidates (as many as 15) named were indeed elected to office. Any of the following factors could have been the reason:

      1. People mostly vote for parties, and not for candidates

      2. Local factors like caste, group affiliation etc often outweigh the criminal record of a candidate.

      3. Many candidates named by Lok Satta were already entrenched members of the political establishment, and had struck deep political roots. Therefore unseating or defeating them was a hard task.

      4. Given the extremely flawed nature of our electoral process, the influence of unaccounted money power, muscle power, and polling irregularities (like false voting through personation) is too great to be countered without comprehensive electoral reform.

   Despite these limitations, the exercise of screening of candidates did result in significant positive gains:

   1. The campaign mobilized public opinion against criminalization as never before. The political parties were forced on the defensive. Criminalization became the central issue of the campaign. The political parties were forced to make repeated public commitment to combat criminalization of politics.

   2. The parties/candidates could not fault the process or the list released by Lok Satta. Their only complaint was that the names of several other candidates with criminal record were not included. The response of Lok Satta to this charge was truthful and effective: they were welcome to furnish those names with verifiable evidence, and Lok Satta would be glad to include them in the list.

   3. Not all, but many of the candidates listed did suffer a disadvantage at the polls.

   4. While criminalization was not reversed (many candidates with criminal record had been nominated and later won the election), the process was arrested to a great extent. Many crime lords and mafia dons, who had just been inducted into political parties, were denied nomination as party candidates largely on account of Lok Satta's campaign.

   5. Lok Satta drafted a Bill to prevent entry of criminals in local governments as a sequel to Election Watch . All parties publicly pledged their support to such a Bill. The State government was forced to declare its intention to enact such a Bill into law. The State Election Commission supported such a Bill, and the government is now officially processing it. Lok Satta's draft Bill has been widely debated in Andhra Pradesh (copy published in this issue, pages 23 and 24). Lok Satta will continue to exert pressure for its enactment before the panchayat elections due before March 2001.

   6. The recent Delhi High Court judgment and several other official and citizens' initiatives were largely influenced by Lok Satta's campaign and meticulous documentation of criminalization of politics.

   Go out and Vote Campaign

   On the eve of the elections, a simple but important aspect of the Election Watch programme was reiterated through a concerted media campaign. This campaign stressed the importance of going out and voting and voting for the right person (in addition to wide dissemination of information gathered about the candidates). In cases where there was poor choice of candidates, the voter was still urged to go and invalidate his/her vote (by marking an `X' across the ballot paper). This serves the twin purpose of preventing impersonation and simultaneously sending a strong protest message to the political parties against fielding such unsuitable candidates.

   Know Your Candidate & Common Platforms

   Debates on common platforms were conducted in 117 assembly constituencies and 14 Parliamentary constituencies. A proforma was devised and information was obtained from candidates about their background, finances and political record. This information was widely publicized through the media as `know your candidate' campaign, and it formed the backdrop for the debates. (This `Know Your Candidate' programme was designed and implemented on a pilot basis in 8 municipal wards of Bangalore city by Public Affairs Centre, a Bangalore based citizens' initiative.) These debates were generally well attended with several instances of live television coverage. In general the public posed very relevant, and at times uncomfortable questions which made the candidates literally stand on their toes. These debates provided an opportunity for the public to question their prospective representatives on issues of concern to them. These platforms certainly helped improve the quality of public discourse by bringing to the fore issues and not mere rhetoric. We proposed a live television debate between the main contenders for the Chief Minister's office _ Mr.Chandrababu Naidu and Dr.Rajasekhara Reddy. Both of them agreed initially. However, Mr.Chandrababu Naidu had second thoughts. While he did not formally call off the debate, he delayed it sufficiently to make it a non-starter. This is not unexpected, as it is well-known that incumbents usually try and avoid live debates. The US experience shows that unusual circumstances made the 1960 debate between Nixon and Kennedy possible. The next debate between Ford and Carter was possible 16 years later in 1976, as Ford, the unelected president took the initiative for his own political reasons. Candidates are unlikely to accept live debates unless they perceive definite political advantage. Once the process begins, the public pressure and media expectations will force politicians to accept them as a regular feature. The Election Watch initiative of Lok Satta gained very wide public attention, and has been enthusiastically supported by all sections. We believe constant pressure will make such debates possible in future elections, and it will be a regular feature in elections all over the country, radically transforming the manner of election campaigns. Finally, a live televised debate was held in Hyderabad on September 3rd 1999, between Mr.Devender Goud and Mr.Rosaiah, the articulate and leading spokespersons of TDP and Congress respectively, and it received excellent response from the public.

   Media Campaign

   We identified some issues of importance on which we wanted to generate public awareness and encourage an informed debate, which could ultimately lead to concerted pressure on the decision making bodies to alter the status quo.

   One of the key issues targeted was Criminalization of Politics, which as already stated generated tremendous response across the State percolating to the grass roots level. We also developed broadcast capsules on issues like empowerment of local self-governments, speedy local justice, primary education and primary health.

   Even though this is an expensive proposition, we are all aware that the wider reach of the media is bound to have a greater impact on the public at the grass roots level .

   This campaign helped in focusing the public's attention on real issues that matter instead of frivolous things like which party is in power or who is going to be the minister.

   Surveys

   Prepoll surveys of electoral rolls were conducted in several polling station areas. About 40% of the names were found to be flawed: either ineligible names of people who are dead, fictitious or non residents in the area were included; or eligible names of local residents were excluded in most urban areas. Post poll survey was conducted in five polling booths to verify how many of the voters supposed to have voted had actually voted. This survey, in areas not known for any rigging or booth-capturing, revealed that nearly 22% of the votes cast were by personation. The results of both surveys were widely publicized, emphasizing the need for better voter registration, immediate introduction of voter identity cards, and to tighten poll procedures.

   The Major Gains of the Election Watch Movement:

   • Spread of public awareness on election flaws

   • Focus on criminalization of politics, making it a key issue in the campaign.

   • Evolving a verifiable, credible mechanism for identifying candidates with criminal record and making their record public

   • Focus on changes in local government laws with respect to elections

   • Focus on the flaws in electoral rolls and involvement of public in revision of electoral rolls

   • Making knowledge capsules available to public on a large scale

   • Training of volunteers on a large scale to help mobilize public opinion and encourage local initiatives.

   • Focus on rigging and personation by post-poll surveys and publicizing results

   • Lok Satta emerged as a credible, powerful platform with wide public support.

   • The concept of getting information on candidates has gained ground

   • Wide acceptance of public questioning by candidates seeking elective office

   • Focus on issues of public importance and good governance.

   • Strong advocacy of specific governance goals resulting in a public commitment for these from parties and candidates

   • Use of electronic media on an unprecedented scale for meaningful public broadcasting to mould public opinion and bring pressure on parties

   • High level of citizens' participation in monitoring election process _ particularly polling.

   Conclusion

   Election Watch 1999 was the largest movement of its kind, and was a great success in promoting public awareness on election flaws, sensitizing the political system to the need for change, and mobilizing public opinion in favour of comprehensive electoral reform. Although we can't claim to have achieved all our goals, we are pleased to have played a modest but significant role in spreading awareness and effecting positive action not only from the general public but also from the political parties. Our experience has been quite enriching and gratifying and we are glad that other like minded groups are attempting to do the same in different parts of the country.

   _ G. Pratibha Rao

   Election Watch: Screening of Potential Candidates

   As part of the Election Watch 1999 movement, Lok Satta has prepared guidelines for the guidance of the activists involved. A Screening Committee was appointed with the participation of eminent jurists, civil and police officials, media persons and activists. All procedures have been streamlined, and all activities were conducted in a transparent manner. Strict guidelines have been evolved to ensure uniform and impartial application of standards, and fair, judicious and credible determination of criminal record. We are reproducing the guidelines for ready adaptation and application by activists all over the country. (Once the process started, we realised that it is much harder to obtain verifiable evidence of corruption. Therefore eventually screening was largely limited to criminal record of candidates.)

   1. Response Format :
      Public response should contain four parts.
      1. The details of the Informant: Name *
         Age
         Education
         Address *
         Constituency
         Phone No.*
         (* Optional. If name and address are given, they will be kept confidential.)
      2. The details of the Potential / Prospective Candidate:
         Name
         Address
         Constituency
         Brief Bio-data
         Party
      3. Criminal / Corrupt record:
         Details of cases with case numbers, police station, court etc.
         Offences of which the person is accused
         Convictions _ with details, if any
         Cases pending _ with details
         History sheet details
         Rowdy sheet details
         Any other information
      4. Enclosures: Documents _ original or phototion given above
   2. Responses to be addressed to:
      Election Watch
      Lok Satta
      Post Box No. 100
      Hyderabad - 500 004
   3. Collection and Storage

      The mail will be cleared every day by Lok Satta Volunteers. At least two volunteers will visit the Post Office and clear the mail. All responses will be kept in sealed canvas bags specially made for the purpose. Until the responses are opened they will be stored at one of the following places.

      1. Lok Satta Election Watch Office or
      2. If more storage space is required _ at Lok Satta Office in Punjagutta, Hyderabad - 500 082.
   4. Opening of Letters/ Envelops

      The mail will be opened once a week or more often as determined by the Screening Committee. The members of the Screening Committee, press and media persons and representatives of political parties will be present.

      The mail will be opened at a suitable venue, say FAPCCI Meeting Hall in the presence of media and Political Party Representatives. However the actual information received will be kept confidential at this stage.

   5. Tabulation of Information

      The initial screening will be done in camera by a core of volunteers under the supervision of the Screening Committee. Volunteers will be drawn from the judiciary (retired), lawyers, retired civil servants and police officials, teachers and media persons.

   6. Criteria for Scrutiny
      1. Criminal Record

         1. Conviction for offences listed under sections 8, 8A and 9 of Representation of the People Act, 1951. (See Annexure_2 in Page No.13)

         2. Charges framed by a competent court after preliminary enquiry _ in respect of offences listed under sections 8 and 8A of RP Act, 1951 _ until they are acquitted.

         3. History sheets opened against convicted persons under Standing Orders 733, 734 and 736 of A.P. Police Standing Orders. (See Annexure_1 in Page No.12)

         4. Rowdy sheets opened against persons classified as rowdies under S.O. 742 of A.P. Police Standing Orders. (See Annexure_1 in Page No.12)

      2. Corruption Record

         1. Specific allegations on the floor of the Assembly or Parliament, and the explanations of the individual concerned

         2. Specific allegations in the press with supporting evidence, and the explanations of the individual

         3. Conviction in a court of law for corruption or misappropriation or embezzlement or cheating

         4. Charges pending in respect of above offences

         5. If a public servant present or past, disciplinary action taken or pending against the person

         6. If a public servant present or past, departmental enquiries pending or completed

         7. The assets of the person before entering public office or politics and the assets now, and the known sources of income

         8. The known income, and lifestyle and expenditure

   7. Guidelines for Recommendations.

      • The responses received will be carefully recorded and scrutinized by a corps of volunteers under the supervision of the screening committee.

      • If specific information is provided with documentary evidence, such cases will be automatically considered by the screening committee.

      • If information is specific, but no documents are enclosed, reasonable efforts will be made to obtain evidence (case records from courts, history sheets from police stations etc).

      • If there are number of credible allegations by many persons against any individual, reasonable efforts will be made to gather specific evidence.

      • All other cases will be ignored if there is no specific information.

      • The cases in which specific information and evidence is available will be short-listed and placed before the Screening Committee with all details.

      • The Screening Committee will go through the information, and will make a recommendation on the basis of facts available. The committee may seek further information if necessary.

      • If the Screening Committee concludes that there is reasonable assumption of criminal or corrupt record, then such names with all details and committee proceedings will be sent to the political party and to the persons concerned.

      • All recommendations will be made by consensus and if no consensus is possible, majority view will prevail.

   8. Communication of Recommendations

      • In respect of cases in which the Screening Committee recommends communication to political parties, a registered Acknowledgement Due letter will be sent to the Party President at the national level with a copy each to the state party president or chief and to the individual concerned. (See draft letter in Page No.25)

      • The letter will outline the information received in respect of the person and the evidence to suggest a criminal or corrupt record.

      • The letter will appeal to the party not to nominate such a person as a candidate for public office until charges are cleared or satisfactory evidence is produced to prove the innocence of the prospective candidate. Such evidence of innocence should be made public to clear all doubts.

      • The individual should be informed that he/she has the opportunity to present his/her case personally or in writing. The Screening Committee will consider the evidence furnished by the individual and if the committee concludes that there is no evidence of criminal or corrupt record, such person's name will be cleared, and the party will be informed accordingly in writing.

      • All correspondence will be signed by the Chairman of Screening Committee or any other person(s) authorized by the committee.

      • The Screening Committee is only determining as a public body of reputed citizens whether there is a criminal or corrupt record. The committee is not accusing any citizen, nor does it determine the guilt of a person. The correspondence should make this clear.

      • The party should be told that if the party or individual concerned fails to establish that there is no criminal or corrupt record, and yet the individual is nominated as a candidate for public office, the entire record will be made public.

   9. Making Recommendations Public

      • If the party or person concerned furnishes information and evidence to establish that the person has no criminal or corrupt record, and can disprove the evidence already available to the Screening Committee, then the committee will consider such information and evidence.

      • The committee is not an adjudicating body, and all proceedings will be summary in nature. No detailed examination is necessary.

      • If the party or person fails to rebut evidence and prove that no criminal or corrupt record exists, and if such a person is nominated by a party for public office, then all relevant information will be sent to the Election Commission, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Returning Officer and the State Election Commission for their information and record. This information will be subsequently made public by the Screening Committee.

      • Adequate copies will be made of the relevant information and documents, and they will be furnished to the media along with a brief statement. Widest possible publicity will be given to the facts of the case.

      • Public should be told of the procedure, and of the fact that the Election Watch Screening Committee has informed the party in advance, and had appealed for the nomination of any other person with no criminal or corrupt record.

      • Such procedure is followed in respect of all parties, and there is neither partisan interest nor prejudice in making the information public.

      • The public should be appealed to reject candidates with criminal or corrupt record, irrespective of party affiliation or caste, religion and regional considerations.

   10. Information Storage

       • All information received will be stored in a computer. The name of the informant shall be kept secret.

       • The name of the person in respect of whom information was received will be kept secret except while informing the party upon screening committee's recommendation, and the details will be made public only if the person is nominated for public office.

       • The original information and documents will be stored for a period of three years, until the statute of limitations no longer applies.

       • In respect of persons who are politically active, the information and documents will be stored as long as Lok Satta Election Watch feels it is necessary in public interest.

       • The storage of information will be the responsibility of Lok Satta.

       • Any future Election Watch Screening Committee will have unrestricted access to such records in furtherance of its objectives.

   Registered Post _ Ack. Due
   Lok Satta Election Watch
   Draft Communication to the Party and the Person
   
   

   Screening Committee

   Hyderabad

   Date:

   -------------------------
   Chairman,
   ------------------------
   Coordinator
   

   As part of its campaign for free and fair elections, and better choice of candidates, Lok Satta Election Watch has constituted a Screening Committee to scrutinize the possible criminal/corrupt record of prospective candidates. Wide publicity was given to this and political parties have been taken into confidence.

   The Screening Committee is not an adjudicating body, and it does not make any accusation against any one. The Committee, composed of highly respected, non-partisan citizens with wide experience, scrutinises the information and evidence furnished by the public and makes a recommendation in respect of individuals against whom there is evidence of criminal/corrupt record.

   Accordingly, in its meeting held on _____________ the Screening Committee has concluded that the available evidence suggests a record of criminality/corruption against______________________________________ ____________. The committee understands that he/she is a prospective candidate for public office on behalf of your party.

   The evidence produced before the committee is as follows. (Copies enclosed)

   We urge you not to consider_____________________________________________ for nomination to public office until his/her name is cleared by a competent court. If you have information or evidence disproving the evidence enclosed, you may please bring it to the committee's notice immediately so that it can be taken into consideration by them. A copy of this letter along with enclosures is being sent to the individual concerned, so that he/she can present his case to the committee similarly. If no intimation is received from you or the individual, the committee will presume that there is no material to counter the evidence presented before it already.

   The name of the person, and the relevant information are kept confidential at this stage. However, if no material is furnished to disprove the evidence available, and if the person is nominated for public office, then the Lok Satta Election Watch Screening Committee will be constrained to place all relevant facts before the people, and leave it to their good sense and judgement.

   We have no partisan interest whatsoever in this exercise, and therefore we are bringing to your notice all facts available to the screening committee in advance. We urge you to nominate any suitable candidate for public office, and not to consider those with a record of criminality and corruption. As a party committed to cleansing politics and improving honesty and probity in public life, we are confident that you will act with integrity and honour, in keeping with public interest and highest standards of morality and propriety.

   Yours sincerely,
   (Signature)

   National Coalition for Electoral Reforms _ Lok Satta's Initiative

   FDR/Lok Satta have been advocating that national rejuvenation effort should be centered round the key issues of electoral reforms. Free and fair elections are the starting point of a functioning democracy, and are the key to resolving to-day's governance crisis. In order to forge a national alliance for electoral reforms, Lok Satta appeals for leadership and guidance from concerned citizens and activists in mobilizing public opinion through non-partisan citizens' initiatives to monitor elections. The appeal of Lok Satta (in the form of a letter) is published in full to facilitate debate and collective action. (ed.)

   Dear Friend,
   

   Sub:_ Citizens' Initiatives for cleaner elections - national coalition for electoral reforms.

   Foundation for Democratic Reforms (FDR) is a non-partisan think tank and resource centre dedicated to governance reforms in India. FDR sponsored a people's movement Lok Satta. The mission of Lok Satta is to promote peaceful, democratic transformation of Indian governance process and to enable India achieve its full potential through good governance.

   Lok Satta emerged as a major civil society influence in Andhra Pradesh. While governance reform goals are national, we have consciously decided to limit our grassroots work to Andhra Pradesh. We believe that major civil society initiatives can be launched by credible persons of impeccable track record in their State, and who have the advantage of knowledge of local language and intimate acquaintance with local conditions. We have designed and implemented several grass-roots programmes for collective citizen assertion with considerable success. People's Watch movement for better delivery of public services and against corruption, Swarajya movement for specific governance reforms at the State and local level, and Election Watch movement for effective monitoring of elections by citizens are the most important initiatives. Lok Satta now has over 100,000 members and far more significantly the movement has wide name recognition and enjoys passive support and goodwill of about 15% - 20% of the State's population.

   Lok Satta is increasingly convinced that the national reform effort should be centered around the key issue of electoral reforms. Free and fair elections are the starting point of a functioning democracy, and are the key to resolving today's crisis. A fair degree of consensus has been achieved on the contours of reform over the years through the efforts of various committees, statutory bodies and activist groups. The political class is at least theoretically committed to electoral reform, and will find it difficult to openly resist genuine reform. Most electoral reforms can be achieved by a mere law of parliament and certain procedural changes. Electoral reform, concerning local governments need legislation only at the State level. Given these factors Lok Satta has been earnestly striving to forge alliances nationally to build a genuine and effective movement for governance reforms with the main focus on electoral reforms.

   Accordingly we are sharing our concerns with credible activists and thinkers across the country. Our experience in Andhra Pradesh shows that carefully designed citizen activism in monitoring elections, unearthing irregularities and focusing public attention on the practical reforms needed are the best ways of building a movement and furthering the cause of reform. We have discovered, for instance, that in urban areas about 40% of the electoral rolls are flawed _ either the eligible voters' names are missing, or the ineligible and fictitious names find place. Post-election surveys in cities indicate that over 20% of the votes cast are probably bogus. We have designed and implemented an elaborate and transparent programme to screen candidates for criminal record, and identified and publicized names of 45 candidates with verifiable criminal record. It electrified the State and gained wide-spread national attention. The recent judgement of the Delhi High Court directing the Election Commission to collect and disseminate information on criminal record of candidates is based in part on Lok Satta's documentation of criminal record of candidates. Lok Satta organized live public debates and common platforms in a structured format in over 130 Assembly and Parliamentary constituencies. A live State-wide television debate too was conducted for the first time in India. Over 10,000 volunteers were trained in the techniques of Election Watch.

   The impending elections to Legislative Assemblies in the States of Assam, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal give all of us a priceless opportunity to mobilize public opinion in favour of electoral and governance reforms. We seek your leadership and guidance in organizing citizens and launching Election Watch movement in all these and other States. FDR and Lok Satta will be happy to share our insights and knowledge and provide training and other inputs. We will do everything possible to facilitate the launching of Election Watch movement everywhere. But the actual leadership and effort must come from activists and public opinion makers in each of these States. We believe that these citizens' initiatives have a realistic chance of coalescing into a national movement for electoral reforms. Without non-partisan grass-roots activity based on painstaking research and insights, mere advocacy is unlikely to yield results. Genuine non-partisan activism is more likely to unite people for a common cause.

   We propose the following steps in pursuit of the goals outlined above:

   1. Identification of public opinion makers, activist organizations and movements in each State.

   2. Initial meetings to arrive at consensus and draw up the detailed programme.

   3. Training of about 20-25 activists from each state (FDR/Lok Satta will be happy to provide free lodge, board and training. Travel costs should be borne by the participants.).

   4. Preparation and printing of Election Watch manuals for each State. (Lok Satta will assist the efforts, but translation will have to be done by local activists).

   5. Setting up an Election Watch Committee in each State with the involvement of eminent and credible non-partisan citizens — jurists, media persons, civil servants, activists, academics and thinkers.

   6. Setting up a National Secretariat to assist the efforts in each State and to help share knowledge and experience.

   7. Taking up sample surveys to focus on some of the obvious, indefensible, easily remediable flaws in election process.

   8. Prepare a few media capsules and launch a media campaign.

   9. Planning effective follow up action to build a National Platform for electoral reforms.

      FDR and Lok Satta are not funded organizations and as a principle we do not accept foreign funding. Therefore there are severe resource constraints. However, FDR/Lok Satta will provide all back up support and help initiate the process.

      We will be grateful if you could participate in this effort and provide your leadership and guidance. We would appreciate if you could indicate your willingness, fill out the enclosed proforma and mail to us (please see proforma on page 29). The enclosed literature will give you a broad idea of the work of FDR/Lok Satta. You may also like to visit our website: www.loksatta.org to get more details. We will be glad to furnish any additional information you may require.

      In view of the urgency and importance of this effort, we would appreciate an immediate response.

      With warm regards,
      Dr Jayaprakash Narayan
      National Coordinator
      
      Lok Satta Activities Update

      Delhi High Court Judgment on Criminalization

      Lok Satta's meticulous documentation of the criminal record of candidates contesting Assembly and Parliament elections in 1999 in Andhra Pradesh continues to yield unexpected medium-term results. A petition was filed by Association for Democratic Reforms before Delhi High Court after the 1999 election seeking a directive to Election Commission to collect and disseminate information on the criminal record of candidates. The Association for Democratic Reforms was launched by Prof. Jagdeep Chhokar of Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad and Prof. Trilochan Sastry of Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, among others. The petitioners relied largely on the screening of candidates by Lok Satta as part of Election Watch 1999, and cited as evidence the list of candidates and their criminal record published. On 2nd Nov 2000 the Delhi High Court delivered a land mark judgment up holding the petition. The details can be seen on page 8.

      Supreme Court Judgment on Local Government Elections in Andhra Pradesh

      Readers will remember that the Andhra Pradesh government has unconstitutionally postponed elections to panchayats. These elections were due in early 2000. The ordinance promulgated by Governor Rangarajan was roundly condemned by Lok Satta. On a petition filed by the State Election Commission, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held the ordinance unconstitutional and while quashing it, ordered immediate elections. The State went in appeal to Supreme Court and obtained a Stay of the High Court Judgment. Lok Satta activist all over Andhra Pradesh sent over 5000 letters to the chief Justice of India pointing out the constitutional provisions (Art 243E) and the earlier Supreme Court judgment in the case of Uttar Pradesh, and sought immediate disposal of the appeal of State government and vacation of Stay. The Supreme Court finally delivered its verdict in November 2000, and directed the State to conduct panchayat elections before March 2001. We hope the State will fulfil its constitutional obligation and facilitate elections to local governments immediately.

      National Coalition for Electoral Reforms

      Foundation for Democratic Reforms (FDR)/ Lok Satta launched an initiative to promote a national coalition for electoral reforms. In order to build public opinion in favour of reforms, we need to promote genuine non-party activism and unite people for a common cause. Citizens' initiatives for cleaner elections in States where they are due have a realistic potential to coalesce into a national movement for electoral reforms. FDR / Lok Satta are prepared to share their insights and experience, and provide all support to help activists launch Election Watch in their respective States. An appeal is being sent to activists all over the country. (For details please see the letter on page 26) We urge all non-partisan people's movements, credible activists, public opinion makers and thinkers to respond to Lok Satta's initiative, and provide leadership and guidance to this effort in their respective States and across the country.

      Turning Volunteerism into Concerted Citizen Action

      Lok Satta periodically organizes training programmes for new and existing volunteers in Andhra Pradesh, providing specific intervention skills and encouraging discussion on a wide range of issues. During November, training camps were held in Kondamallealli in Nalgonda District, Balanagar and Qutbullapur in Hyderabad, Kukatpally in Ranga Reddy dist., Warangal and Karimnagar. Issues discussed ranged from the Indian Constitution and Lok Satta's suggestions for reform, citizens' right to information, electoral reforms, speedy justice, and other local and national governance problems. Such training programmes, apart from giving the new recruits valuable information, provide them with the motivation to continue the struggle to achieve local-level reforms in their respective villages and districts, while at the same time keeping in view the need for large-scale reform. To this end, Lok Satta continues to mobilize and strengthen its local units, which together form the nervous system of the movement.

      Holding Legislators Accountable

      Bringing candidates and incumbent politicians and allowing people to confront their representatives directly has for long been a priority on Lok Satta's list. In November, a face-to-face programme with the Kodada constituency MLA drew a crowd of 500, all of whom wished to hear about efforts to root out corruption in government. Apart from creating awareness about Lok Satta's activities and the political process, these events also provide opportunities to bring to focus other local problems in areas such as education, health, housing infrastructure, and so on. For instance, last month Lok Satta volunteers distributed Belladona tablets among children in Kurnool and Chittoor, to prevent the occurrence of brain fever. These face-to-face programmes with MLAs a year after they were elected are being conducted all over Andhra Pradesh as a part of citizens' review to hold legislators accountable to people

      National Coalition for Electoral Reforms
      Response Proforma
      1. 1. Individual / Organization
         2. Name
         3. Address
         4. Tel.No.
         5. Fax No.
         6. Email
         7. Contact persons

         Name

         Address

         Tel.No.

         Email

         1)
         2)
      2. 1. Area of Operation
         2. Activities

         (Please give brief write up on current activities and accomplishments)

      3. I / We share the concerns for electoral reforms and am / are willing to take part in citizens' initiatives in ____________________________________________ (State)

         We would like to operate in
         • The entire state of
         • District
         • Constituency (Please tick the appropriate box)

         I / We would like to take up / lend support for the following activities:

         - Assisting unregistered voters to get registered

         - Verification of electoral rolls

         - Identification of candidates with criminal record

         - Organizing Election platform

         - Monitoring the elections

         - Preparation of Media capsules

         - Liaison with the press and getting coverage for Election Watch

         - Giving publicity to the objectives of Election Watch

         - Organizing state level or national level platform

         - Any other manner (please specify)

      4. The following individuals / Organizations will be supportive of the Election Watch programme

         Name

         Address

         Tel.No.

         Email

         Note: Please attach additional sheets if necessary. You may also enclose brochures / other information about your organization / work.

         Name

         Designation

         Signature