Wednesday, 1 March 2017

FAILURE OF THE ELECTION COMMISSION IN EDUCATING PEOPLE ABOUT NOTA

FAILURE OF THE ELECTION COMMISSION IN EDUCATING PEOPLE ABOUT NOTA
This Article is an analysis to evaluate the efforts of the Election Commission of India to educate the masses about NOTA pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,in its Judgement dated 27th September 2013,in Writ Petition (Civil) No.161 of 2004 (People's Union for Civil Liberties & Anr vs Union of India & Anr) based on documents supplied to me by the Election Commission of India in regard to my email and RTI Application.
After direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to introduce NOTA in the ballot papers/EVMs and educate the masses about NOTA,Loksabha General Election of 2014 and assembly elections in 25 States/UTs have taken place till now.Twice in Delhi.
In the letter vide No.976 of the Commission of dated 20th June,2016, it has been informed to me that in pursuance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgement,the Election Commission of India has issued instructions vide its letter No.576/3/2013/SDR dated 11.10.2013 for compliance of the same.But this instructions of dated 11.10.2013 only relates to introduce NOTA in the ballot papers/EVMs and nothing is written in this instructions relating to educate the masses about NOTA.
The first Circular issued by the Election Commission of India directing the Chief Electoral Officers of Chhattisgarh,Madhya Pradesh,Rajasthan, Mizoram and Delhi ahead of assembly elections in these States/UTs to educate the masses about NOTA was of dated 31/10/2013 which i came to know by the RTI reply of the Commission of dated 2nd December,2015.
The second and last Circular issued by the Election Commission of India directing the Chief Electoral Officers of Kerala, Tamil Nadu,West Bengal and Puducherry ahead of assembly elections in these States/UTs to educate the masses about NOTA was of dated 18/04/2016 which i came to know by the letter of the Commission of dated 20th June 2016.
But from the date of judgement of Supreme Court i.e.27/09/2013 to the date of RTI reply to me i.e.20/06/2016 legislative assembly elections had taken place in 20 States/UTs and out of 20,Chief Electoral Offiers of only 9 States/UTs,as mentioned above,were directed and besides direction nothing happened for awareness about NOTA even in these 9 States/UTs.No such direction to aware people about NOTA was issued ahead of Loksabha General Election of 2014.Out of 20,11 other States where Assembly Elections held during these periods but even direction was not issued by the Election Commission to aware people about NOTA are Andhra Pradesh,Arunachal Pradesh,Assam,Bihar,Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir,Jharkhand,Maharashtra,Odisha, Sikkim and Telangana.
In Delhi Assembly Election of 2013,direction was issued to educate about NOTA,but in Delhi Assembly Election of 2015,no such direction was issued.
It appears from the perusal of various Circulars/Notifications issued by the Election Commission of India in connection with present 2017 Assembly Elections of Punjab,Goa,Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh and Manipur that even direction has not been issued to the Chief Electoral Officers of these States to aware people about NOTA.
The Election Commission has taken new initiatives in Assembly Elections of 2017 like distribution of Voter Guide Brochure along with Photo Voter Slip to all electors and display of four Voter Facilitation Posters (VFPs) at Polling Stations on the Poll day.Notifications pertaining to Voter Guide Brochure do not mention anything about incorporation of information related to NOTA in Voter Guide Brochure and pertaining to Voter Facilitation Posters (VFPs) do not mention anything about incorporation of information related to NOTA in Voter Facilitation Posters (VFPs).
It may be concluded that Election Commission of India is violating the direction of the Supreme Court.
LikeShow More Reactions
Comment
2 shares
7 comments
Comments
Subham Kumar Phone number
UnlikeReply219 February at 14:31
Rahul Kumar 7347887884..
LikeReply19 February at 14:47
Dhiraj Kumar रहुल जी सही लिखा ह आप न superime कोट का आदेश का अवहेलना हो रहा
UnlikeReply219 February at 18:06
Rahul Kumar JI.....Thanks to support....
LikeReply119 February at 20:32
Sudhanshu Ranjan Good job Rahul
UnlikeReply120 February at 11:38
Rahul Kumar replied1 Reply
Vikash Kumar Pankaj Rahul you are doing a good job & inspirational for a lot
UnlikeReply120 February at 15:20
Rahul Kumar Thanks a lot sir...
LikeReply20 February at 16:34
Raushan Singh Vvery good sir
UnlikeReply120 February at 16:28
Rahul Kumar Thank u all friends
LikeReply22 February at 09:20
Posted by at No comments:

DOCTRINE OF COLOURABLE JUDICIAL LEGISLATION

DOCTRINE OF COLOURABLE JUDICIAL LEGISLATION
Issue relating to mandatorily play of the National Anthem in the Cinema Hall before screening of the movie and obligation of all present in the hall to stand up to show respect to the National Anthem pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been put before me by one learned friend in order to express my views,which(issue) is reproduced below-
"Might ethics be the complement of laws in order to control the society, because many decisions were taken by supreme court which encroach the extent of ethics.
For example to play national anthem in cinema hall."
My Views:-
This direction of the Supreme Court is very controversial.
The Supreme Court had evolved the Doctrine of Colourable Legislation,which declares "What you can not do directly,also you can not do indirectly."This Doctrine was evolved to hold such laws made by Legislatures(Parliament/State Legislatures) unconstitutional for which legislatures are not competent directly,but make such laws indirectly in the external form of other laws.
I would like to use Doctrine of Colourable Judicial Legislation in reference of laws declared by the Supreme Court,but in different sense.Now it's becoming trend that What Parliament can not make law directly,however being competent to do so, due to apprehension of effect on votes of ruling party,the Ruling Govt wants to be made by the Supreme Court.
Parliament is competent to make law to decrimilize homesexuality of adult persons by amending section 377 IPC but the Govt sought decrimilization of homesexuality of adult persons by the Supreme Court only.
Parliament is competent to make law to abolish triple talaq by regulating the Muslim Personal Law but the Govt is seeking abolition by the Supreme Court only.
Parliament is competent to make law to determine the occasions where the National Anthem be mandatorily played/sung but the Govt supported the determination in the Supreme Court only.
If the Parliament makes such laws,as referred above,it will cause reduction in votes to the ruling party to a great extent by the unhappy segments of the society and increase in votes to the ruling party by the happy segments of the society but if the Govt seeks/supports declaration of such laws by the Supreme Court and the Court declares,then it will increase votes to the ruling party by the happy segments of the society,but will not reduce(or will reduce to a very little extent) votes to the ruling party by the unhappy segments.
What i would like to say by using Doctrine of Colourable Judicial Legislation is that What the Parliament can not do directly due to political reasons,the Supreme Court must not do that,subject to protection of fundamental rights,only for which the Supreme Court has writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Triple Talaq and Homosexuality involve substantial questions of law as to interpretation of the Constitution in reference to fundamental rights of individuals, therefore the Supreme Court must decide in this regard.Respecting the National Anthem is a fundamental duty under Article 51A(a) of the Constitution,for which the Supreme Court has no writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution but the Supreme Court has directed to play the National Anthem in the cinema hall while exercising writ jurisdiction in Writ Petition(Civil) No.855 of 2016 in the matter of Shyam Narayan Chouksey vs Union of India.
What laws are made by the Legislatures generally do not expressly provide as to reasons and purposes for doing so and how purposes will be served,but are implied with laws.What laws are declared by the Supreme Court always expressly provide reasons and purposes for declaring such laws and how purposes will be served because reasoned decision is the integral part of the principle of Natural Justice.But the Supreme Court while directing to play the National Anthem in the cinema hall has not provided as to how purposes will be served besides citing to respect the National Anthem,as it is a fundamental duty.
Reasons and purposes for which law is made is actually ethics behind the law.Therefore,ethics guide laws and laws change according to changes in ethics.
Law is made to fulfill some ethics.In what manner,we can fulfill ethics varies from person to person.But there must be some standard manner of fulfilling ethics.Obligation to play the National Anthem before screening of the movie and stand is obviously not a standard manner of fulfilling ethics because imposition of obligation by the law,that too only in the cimena hall and in future may be in all schools, can not create a sense of respect.Respect is created by motivations and activities and binding obligation only at few places can not create respect.
So far as fulfilling the ethics of respect to any thing is concerned,it can only be provided by the law to respect,law can not provide the manner of respect.There must be some standard manner of fulfilling the ethics of respect framed by the Govt based on motivations and activities,not on imposition of obligation.
I am of the view that ethics is the complement of law,but the direction of the Supreme Court regarding manner of ethics of respect to the National Anthem is not standard and only the Colourable Judicial Legislation, as discussed above.
LikeShow More Reactions
Comment
Comments
Rahul Kumar Bam Shankar Jha -Would you like to say anything?
LikeReply125 February at 15:44
Bam Shankar Jha Yes sir your answer is totally perfect to my question. So thanks a lot for sharing such important ideas with me and all enlightened friends.
I m totally satisfied with your answer.
I hearty appreciate your thought process and profound level of knowledge.
UnlikeReply125 February at 23:19
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)