Posts Tagged ‘Election Commission’
Chief Election Commssioner (CEC) Rajiv Kumar and Election Commissioner (EC) Anup Chandra Pandey have taken an extraordinary decision which no one else in the counrty has taken so far. They have written to the government that they are getting too many allowances and some of these should be reduced. The third EC had alredy retired. This type of decision has not been taken by any government functionary so far. The decision was communicated to the Government on May 20 (2022).
Some people see in this the hand of the Prime Minister who does not like any one in his government enjoying ‘full freedm’. If any change in the service conditions of CEC and EC is made, that has not been made public.
The pressnote issed by the election commision marely says:after assuming the charge as the Chief Election Commissioner of India on May 15, 2022, Rajiv Kumar held the first meeting of the Election Commission same day, along with the Election Commissioner Anup Chandra Pandey and the decision to forgo part of the allowance tekan there itself. A communique issued the same day said that the Commission reviewed the perks and privileges available to the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) including the income tax exemptions given to them on sumptuary allowance.,CEC and ECs draw salary, perks and perquisites as per Section 3 of the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991.
The CEC and ECs were at that time entitled to: A monthly sumptuary allowance of Rs.34000. There was no income tax payable by the CEC and ECs on this allowance.They were entitled to Leave Travel Concessions in a year for self, spouse and dependent members of the family. The Commission felt the need of observing austerity in personal entitlements.
The Commission unanimously decided that CEC and ECs will not take any income tax benefits presently given to them. It was decided to send the proposal to the Central Government for appropriate action.
Further, CEC and ECs will avail only one LTC in a year in place of three LTCs at present avaivailable to them.
After assuming the charge as the Chief Election Commissioner of India on 15th May 2022, Sh. Rajiv Kumar today held the first meeting of the Election Commission, along with the fellow Election Commissioner Sh. Anup Chandra Pandey.
Among other things, the Commission reviewed the perks and privileges available to the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) including the income tax exemptions given to them on sumptuary allowance.
CEC and ECs draw salary perks and perquisites as per Section 3 of the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991. The CEC and ECs are currently entitled to:
A monthly sumptuary allowance of Rs.34000/- There is no income tax payable by the CEC and ECs on this allowance.Three Leave Travel Concessions in a year for self, spouse and dependent members of the family.
Commission felt the need of observing austerity in personal entitlements. The Commission unanimously decided that: CEC and ECs will not take any income tax benefits presently given to them. It was decided to send the proposal to the Central Government for appropriate action. Further, CEC and ECs will avail only one LTC in a year in place of three LTCs presently available to them.
- In: Government | Politics | Society
- Leave a Comment
President Ram Nath Kovind had an opportunity to rise above humdrum politics and act as a statesman but he failed to grab it. His Republic Day eve address to the nation sounded like a rehash of the BJP leaders’ everyday speeches. He conspicuously avoided touching upon the burning issues which are agitating the entire nation. If he had only taken a cue from former President Pranab Mukherjee and hinted to the government to put on hold the issues that are threatening to put asunder the nation, he would have stood out as a statesman and saviour of the nation.
Delivering the first Sukumar Sen memorial lecture organised by the Election Commission on January 23, Mukherjee said: “The last few months have witnessed people come out on the streets in large numbers, particularly the young, to voice their views on issues, which in their opinion, are important. Their assertion and belief in the Constitution of India is particularly heartening to see… democracy thrives on listening, deliberating, discussing, arguing and even dissent. I believe the present wave of largely peaceful protests that have gripped the country shall once again enable further deepening of our democratic roots.”
Thousands of men and women, mostly youth, have for over a month been on the streets all over India in protest against ill-conceived CAA, suffering bitter cold and police atrocities. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has particularly been behaving like a barbarian ruler of mediaeval times, letting loose his uncivilised police on them. For this gangster-turned-Chief Minister, the dissent is sedition. Instead of reaching out to such a vast number of people to listen to their points of view, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah have not only adopted an obstinate attitude against them but are deepening the crisis by their provocative utterances.
If the President had hinted at the need for replacing the police danda with dialogue to evolve consensus on the ticklish issues, the government leaders were bound to listen to him. Besides, it would have opened an honourable route for the Prime Minister and the Home Minister to give up their obstinacy. Because of their arrogance, they would not acknowledge opposition leaders views while the bitter criticism of CAA in foreign media seems to have only hardened their attitude. The things have come to such a pass that the ruling clique is not only fast alienating the vast majority of people within the country, but also losing goodwill abroad. Several politicians in the friendly countries and top ranking business tycoons have already expressed their disapproval of the citizenship legislation in varying degrees.
Having whipped frenzy among his supporters against dissenters by branding them Pakistanis and anti-nationals, Modi may not find it easy to be seen as buckling under the pressure of domestic or foreign opposition to his actions; that is, if he does want to restore normalcy in the country. However, an advice by the President, who was chosen by him for the top post, would have provided him a way out. This would have enhanced the prestige not only of the office of President but of Modi also as he would have been seen giving up his obstinacy in deference to the wishes of the country’s highest Constitutional authority.
Over Rs 871 crore has been placed at the disposal of political parties through Electoral Bonds before the Assembly elections in five States of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Telangana and Mizoram — over Rs 400 crore in October itself. There is no record of the amounts collected by these parties through other means.
A report in The Hindu, based on the information supplied by the State Bank of India (SBI) under RTI query, Electoral Bonds worth Rs 401.73 crore were sold by SBI in the October 1-10 window, most of these Bonds being in denominations of Rs 1 crore and above. This was the fifth tranche. The highest number of Bonds, about 37.5 per cent (worth Rs 150.7 crore) were sold in Mumbai. The second highest sale was in Kolkata (Rs 62.6 crore worth). Earlier, the SBI had sold Bonds worth Rs 222 crore in March, Rs 114.9 crore in April, Rs 101 crore in May, and Rs 32 crore in July.
Only the SBI is authorised to sell the Bonds, through its designated 53 branches across the country. The Bonds are in the denominations of Rs 1000, Rs 10,000, Rs one lakh, Rs ten lakh and Rs one crore. An individual or an organisation/body can purchase these Bonds from a designated SBI branch after fulfilling the KYC (Know Your Customer) requirements. The name of the purchaser will not be displayed on the Bond.
The buyer can donate these Bonds to a political party which is registered with the Election Commission and has received not less than one per cent of the votes in the last Lok Sabha or Assembly election. The party can encash the Bonds only by depositing these in its bank, registered with the Election Commission within 15 days of the issuance of the Bond. If not deposited within 15 days, the amount of the Bond will be credited to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund. The scheme was included in the 2017-2018 budget proposals.
This Electoral Bond scheme was described as a “retrograde step” by O P Rawat in August last year — before his elevation as the Chief Election Commissioner. In his keynote address at a conference of Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), Rawat had observed that the “recent amendments in the election and income tax laws make it clear that any donation received by a political party through an Electoral Bond has been taken out of the ambit of reporting in the Contribution Report which political parties have to submit to the Election Commission (EC). Implication of this step can be retrograde as far as transparency is concerned. Furthermore, where contributions received through Electoral Bonds are not reported, a perusal of Contribution Reports will not make it clear whether the party in question has taken any donation in violation of Section 298 of the Representation of the People Act, which prohibits political parties from taking donations from Government companies and foreign sources.”
Besides, the Election Commission had expressed the apprehension that abolition of relevant provisions of the Companies Act of removing a cap of 7.5 per cent of profit for political donations can lead to money laundering by setting up of shell companies for diverting funds for donations to political parties.
The Electoral Bonds scheme, notified by the Union Government on January 2, is a clever step towards emaciating the opposition parties. Neither will it lead to greater transparency in the funding of political parties (as claimed by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley) nor will it check the flow of black money into the electoral process. Even Election Commission has expressed apprehensions at the move. The scheme was mischievously included in the 2017-2018 budget proposals.
According to the notification, only the State Bank of India (SBI) can issue the Electoral Bonds in the denominations of Rs 1000, Rs 10,000, Rs one lakh, Rs ten lakh and Rs one crore. A total of 53 branches of SBI have been authorised to sell the Bonds – one branch in the capitals of all the States and Union Territories – more than one branch in some States. An individual or body can purchase these Bonds from the designated branches after fulfilling the KYC (Know Your Customer) requirements. However, the Bonds will not carry the name of the purchaser.
The byer can donate these Bonds to a political party which is registered with the Election Commission and has received not less than one per cent of the votes in the last Lok Sabha or Assembly election. The party can encash the Bonds only by depositing these in its bank, registered with Election Commission, within 15 days after the issuance of the Bond. If not deposited within 15 days, the amount of the Bond will go to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund.
Jaitley told Lok Sabha on January 2 that ‘the element of transparency is that the balance sheet of donors will reflect that they have bought a certain amount of Bonds and political parties will also file their returns (with the Election Commission) that will reflect the extent of Electoral Bonds received.’ The Finance Minister also said that ‘political funding needs to be cleansed up. A very large part of donation coming to political parties by the donors, quantum and source is not known….Electoral Bonds (will) substantially cleanse the system.’
The Election Commission was not amused when Jaitley had announced the Electoral Bonds scheme in his budget proposals. Its objection mainly was that it might lead to the use of black money in electoral politics. In his keynote address at a conference of Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) some time back, Election Commissioner O P Rawat observed that ‘the recent amendments in the election and income tax laws make it clear that any donation received by a political party through an Electoral Bond has been taken out of the ambit of reporting in the Contribution Report which political parties have to submit to the EC. Implications of this step can be retrograde as far as transparency is concerned. Furthermore, where contributions received through Electoral Bonds are not reported, a perusal of contributions reports will not make it clear whether the party in question has taken any donations in violation of Section 298 of the Representation of the People Act, which prohibits political parties from taking donations from Government companies and foreign sources.’
Election Commission had expressed the apprehension that abolition of relevant provisions of the Companies Act of removing a cap of 7.5 per cent of profit for political donations can lead to money laundering by setting up of shell companies for diverting funds for donations to political parties.
The January 2 notification says: ‘the information furnished by the buyer (of Electoral Bonds) shall be treated confidential by the authorised bank and shall not be disclosed to any authority for any purposes, except when demanded by a competent court or upon registration of a criminal case by any law enforcement agency.’
That, of course, is the official position. Unofficially, the SBI is all but part of Finance Ministry. In the corruption-ridden system that we have, an unscrupulous Finance Minister can always get the information as to who purchased Electoral Bonds of what amounts and to which parties’ accounts have these been credited. Next is carrots and sticks approach.
EVM manipulation bogey is not new
Posted on: April 9, 2017
The BJP swept the February-March, 2017 Assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. The instant reaction of BSP supremo Mayawati to her party’s miserable performance in Uttar Pradesh was that Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) were manipulated. Soon the Samajwadi Party and AAP leaders joined Mayawati’s outcry. Even some Congress leaders in Uttarakhand also started talking about EVM manipulation. Meanwhile, a discussion on the fragmentation of non-BJP votes in Uttar Pradesh had also started (the BJP got so many seats with a vote share of less than 40 per cent while the combined vote share of BSP and SP was over 44 per cent plus six per cent of the Congress share).
The subject of EVM manipulation has been cropping up almost from the time EVMs were introduced. A sort of campaign on this issue was launched by then Madhya Pradesh Congress President Suresh Pachouri after the 2008 Assembly elections which had returned BJP’s Shivraj Singh Chouhan for the second term. A distraught Pachouri had threatened to expose EVM manipulations with the help of his “friends in the UK and the US”.
Before Pachouri could carry out his threat, Lal Krishna Advani jumped in the fray after the BJP lost the 2009 Lok Sabha elections and his dream of becoming the Prime Minister was shattered. He demanded discontinuation of EVMs and going back to the printed ballot papers. Advani’s demand was supported by the leaders of various parties like the AIADMK, CPI (M), Janata Dal (S) and the Lok Janshakti Party. Advani had the support of a bureaucrat also. Former Delhi chief secretary Omesh Saigal had surfaced to claim that he knew a secret code in the EVM, through which the machine could be programmed to transfer every fifth vote to a particular candidate. Petitions were filed in courts on the fallibility of EVMs, one of the most vocal petitioners being BJP’s Kirit Somaiya.
There was so much noise in the country that the Election Commission felt it had to do something. In August 2009, the Commission randomly obtained 100 EVMs from 10 States (Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh). The Commission invited political leaders, petitioners and other critics of EVMs and also made the media announcement that the EVMs would be kept in the Commission office for a specified period and anyone could come and show how these machines could be manipulated. No one did. The EVM bogey, though, has one merit. It keeps occupied the politicians who have been defeated in the elections and have nothing else to do at the moment.
- In: Education | Government | Judiciary | Politics
- Leave a Comment
The Delhi High Court has not helped further the cause of transparency in public life by staying the direction of the Central Information Commission (CIC) to Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to permit examination of Class XII records of Union Textiles Minister Smriti Irani. The High Court order was based on a petition filed by the CBSE which had claimed that the records were ‘personal information’.
It defies comprehension how someone’s educational qualifications can be ‘personal information’. The matter was raised earlier before a Metropolitan Magistrate who had also dismissed the petition with the argument that the ‘complainant (petitioner) may not have filed it if she was not a Central Minister’. The Magistrate had also noted ‘a great delay of 11 years’ in filing the complaint.
If one’s educational qualification falls in the category of ‘personal information’, then one’s criminal record should also be treated as ‘personal information’. After prolonged deliberations, the Election Commission of India has made it mandatory for aspirants to enter Parliament or a Legislature to make public all information about the prospective candidate including educational and criminal records.
The Election Commission has not taken it upon itself to scrutinise the accuracy of the particulars given by a candidate. It is left to the alert citizens to find through proper channels if the information given by a candidate is true or false.
The Metropolitan Magistrate’s argument that information about Smriti Irani’s educational records was being sought only because she is a Central Minister is also specious. People are interested in finding out the veracity of her claims only because she is an important public figure.
Forgery is fast becoming a norm rather than exception in India and is quite visible in educational fields. The Vyapam Scam of Madhya Pradesh Government can be cited as an example in which politicians, bureaucrats, judicial officers, police officers and free-lance racketeers joined hands for decades and destroyed careers of honest, hardworking youth. Smriti Irani’s stubborn resistance to her educational records being made public only confirms the suspicion that there may be something fishy about her educational claims. The Judiciary’s attitude can, at best, be described only as retrograde.
Musings on Bihar outcome
Posted on: November 9, 2015
A major cause, among various others, of BJP’s humiliating performance in the Bihar Assembly elections may be Amit Shah’s inability to enroll fake voters in large numbers as he was believed to have done in Varanasi Lok Sabha constituency from where Narendra Modi had announced his decision to contest. Later the attempt to rig the Delhi Assembly polls was thwarted by the vigilant Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leadership.
Modi was elected from Varanasi in 2014 with a margin of three lakh and odd votes. When the Election Commission later undertook the task of revision of electoral rolls in Varanasi Lok Sabha constituency, over six lakh forgeries in the electoral rolls were discovered.
Perhaps sensing the manipulations in Varanasi Lok Sabha constituency, AAP and Congress Party leaders complained to the Election Commission about the bogus entries in the voters’ lists before the Delhi Assembly elections but the Election Commission did not pay attention to their complaints. The matter was then raised before the Delhi High Court which pulled up the Election Commission and asked it what action it had taken on the allegation about the presence of a large number of bogus voters in various Assembly constituencies of the national capital.
Only then the Election Commission made a move and detected over 1.2 lakh bogus voters in the electoral lists of Delhi. Narendra Modi’s party, which had done ‘so well’ in the ok Sabha elections only a few months earlier, suffered the worst ever imaginable defeat in the Delhi Assembly elections.
The atmosphere of insecurity among the minorities created on the eve of the Bihar Assembly elections might also have alienated a large sections of the peace-loving people of all castes and creeds from the BJP. The abusive language used by several BJP leaders, most notably by Narendra Modi and Amit Shah also militated against the chances of the BJP. To say that those who would vote against the BJP would be trying to please Pakistan betrayed only mental sickness of BJP president Amit Shah.
An offshoot of the Bihar Assembly elections is the new lease of political life given to discredited Lalu Prasad Yadav by the most absurdly handled poll campaign by the BJP leaders. The alliance of Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar and Lalu Prasad Yadav turned out to be a deadly combination for the BJP leaders to handle. Soft-spoken Nitish Kumar enjoys the confidence of the majority of the people for his simplicity and his zeal to do something for the common man. He could not be expected to stand up to Narendra Modi’s mostly irrelevant jibes. It was left to Lalu to reply to Modi in his own boorish language which the Yadav leader did brilliantly.
Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi was on January 13 sentenced to one year’s imprisonment by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) of Rampur (Uttar Pradesh) for violation of Model Code of Conduct promulgated by the Election Commission of India. He, along with others, was found guilty under Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 341 (wrongful restraint), 342 (wrongful confinement) and 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act. The case pertained to 2009. All were granted bail immediately.
Naqvi is Minister of State for Minority Affairs at the Centre. Now that he has been found guilty of defying Election Commission’s diktat, he deserves to be promoted as the Cabinet Minister. There are reports that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is not satisfied with the working of Union Minister of Minority Affairs Najma Heptullah. Naqvi can be considered as her replacement.
The BJP has a glorious tradition of promoting those, including bureaucrats, who have been defying Election Commission in the interest of the party. At the scrutiny of nomination papers during the 2008 Madhya Pradesh Assembly elections, Minister of State Tukojirao Puar created ruckus in the office of Dewas Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Sanjana Jain who was Returning Officer for the Sonkutch (SC) constituency. Phoolchand Verma was the BJP candidate from Sonkutch. Puar had accompanied Verma at the time of the scrutiny.
On a direction of the Election Commission, a criminal case was registered against Puar under Sections 186, 353 and 506 of IPC. As the Sections make it a cognisable offence, Puar was subsequently arrested by the police and lodged in police lock-up till he got bail a few days later. Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan later told an election meeting at Dewas (Puar’s constituency) that he was proud of Tukojirao Puar. Not only that, Chouhan elevated Puar to the cabinet rank after the elections.
Chouhan was a member of Lok Sabha when he became chief minister in 2005. S K Mishra was the Collector of Sehore and Returning Officer for Budhni constituency from where Chouhan contested and was elected to the Assembly. Mishra became perhaps the first Returning Officer in the country for being summarily removed by the Election Commission a few days before polling for openly kowtowing to the ruling party candidate, viz. Chouhan.
Once the code of conduct period was over, Chouhan made S K Mishra Collector of much more important Bhopal district and then secretary to the chief minister, sending an unmistakable message to the bureaucracy that he would take care of the officers defying the Election Commission to protect his interests.
The prestige of Election Commission of India has further gone down as questions are being once again raised about its competence and integrity. The Commission has revealed presence of over 1.2 lakh bogus voters in the electoral lists of Delhi which is going to the polls soon. What is saddening is that the Election Commission did it only after its working was severely criticised by Delhi High Court.
Discovery of over six lakh forgeries in the electoral rolls in Varanasi Lok Sabha constituency, from where Prime Minister Narendra Modi was elected with a margin of three lakh and odd votes, should have made the Election Commission sit up and take caution against the machinations of unscrupulous elements. Sadly, it did not. It did not care when AAP and Congress party leaders drew its attention to the bogus entries in the voters’ lists in Delhi. It gives no credit to the Election Commission that the judiciary has to intervene on what should have been a routine matter.
Earlier this month, Delhi High Court pulled up the Election Commission and asked it what action it had taken on the allegation about the presence of a large number of bogus voters in various Assembly constituencies of the national capital. “What is the cause of it? Obviously someone is not doing their job properly. Last year, my photograph was also wrong,” Justice Vibhu Bakhru said while directing the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Delhi to file an affidavit “indicating the cause of error”.
The court said there were “discrepancies” in the electoral rolls as shown by the petitioner, Naresh Kumar, who had unsuccessfully contested on a Congress ticket from Mundka in the 2014 Delhi Assembly polls. The court also said the allegation that there were many persons in the city who had numerous voter cards in their name but with different addresses needed to be rectified if they were still existing.
In response to the complaints by Aam Aadmi Party and Congress that Delhi’s electoral rolls carried names of a large number of bogus voters, Election Commission wrote to the two parties on January 11 that 1,20,605 duplications had been noticed in the electoral rolls. Election Commission’s response came two days before it was scheduled to file an affidavit in the High Court.
Is Election Commission allowing itself to be manipulated or is it a matter of sheer inefficiency? In either case, it does not help the cause of democracy.
ndsharma's blog 
House light construction site is one of the best site if anyone interested on construction j have to must visit…
[…] MP: police turn collaborators in crimes against women […]
Reblogged this on ndsharma's blog.
Reblogged this on ndsharma's blog.
Reblogged this on ndsharma's blog.