Letter to PM by former CEC SY Quraishi

Speed Post A.D. Right to Information

PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE South Bfock

New Delhi - 110011 No. RTI/1613/2012-PMR Dated:) ~ June, 2012

To: Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal 1775, Kucha Lattushah Dariba, Chandni Chowk Delhi - 110006

Subject: Follow-up on appeal decision.

Sir,

In continuation of letter of even no. dated 8.6.2012, the relevant document as sought in point no. 2 of your application is enclosed herewith (19 pages).

Yours faithfully,

Encl: As above (19 pages). h (Sanjukta Ray)

Deputy Secretary and Central Public Information Officer

~: 23074072

\

qm:r Picff'b/ PI anmJ/Dr:-r.;.~ Quraishi Election Commission of IndiaChief ~lection Commissioner of India

D.G.No.3/ERlSDRJ20l21 Dated: 13th April, 2012

Respected Pradhan Mantri Ji,

I recall with gratitude your wise counsel and support for this Commission's

long pending electoral reforms proposals, during every meeting that I had with

you. Hence allow me Sir, to place before you the Commission's deep

disappointment over the fact that a necessary legislation in this regard is yet to be

materialised despite an assurance given to us by the Hon'ble Minister of Law and

Justice.

2. Our elections have received global acclaim for being free, fair and credible,

thanks to the sagacity of the Constitution, supplemented by successive

governments, legislatures, the judiciary, the civil services, political parties and the

citizens at large. However, the quality of our elections often gets questioned on

account of certain weaknesses in pur electoral process. Commission's reform

proposals have always aimed at addressing this predicament. Though certain

minor reforms have been adopted by Government and Parliament, the substantial

ones have been actually left out allowing the allegations that politicians are not

keen about the reforms because of their vested interest.

3. A stark example of what I am seeking to underline is the Commission's

proposal of 1998, seeking a temporary suspension of the right of persons facing

.trial in heinous crimes to contest elections. This proposal, you would appreciate,

aimed at decriminalization of politics, a truly national concern and a declared

concern of your government. The number of elected members with criminal

antecedents is on the mcrease, undermining the stature of our great legislative

~. .. Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi 110001, Tel: .<~) 237200.13. 237170~5. F~x : 23355631 OJ> Email: [email protected]. [email protected], WebsIte: www.eci.ruc.m

.~~~ A,'" ~ S~ct~ en (J IT~ cer

:<, ,,' ,,:- .>,.' '" :·:..~:ffi~:12

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

institutions. This proposal has since been moderated to only inc1ude charges

framed in a Court and that too before six months. The Commission strongly feels

that when thousands of under - trial accused are denied even some fundamental

rights, besides the right to vote, it is high time that those with severe criminal

charges are debarred from contesting.

4. Another example is the pernicious role played by big money in elections. It

is a cause of great concern not only to us, but also to the general public, civil

society organizations, and other stakeholders in political process. As you may be

aware that through heightened vigilance of the Commission in recent times, there

has been substantial seizure of cash, liquor and drugs during the elections process,

purported to be going around as inducement. The proposals of the Commission

aiming at transparency in the functioning of political parties and the auditing and

publication of their accounts seek to address the problem.

5. The Constitution provides some sound safeguards to insulate the

Commission from executive interference. These safeguards have, however,

naturally fallen short with passage of time and changing situations. A point in case

is the extent of protection enjoyed by the members of the Commission. As per the

Constitution, the Chief Election Commissioner cannot be removed from office

except through the process of impeachment as in the case of a Judge of the

Supreme Court. However, the existing provision for the other Election

Commissioners is that they cannot be removed except on the recommendation of

the Chief Election Commissioner. This is an anomaly. The protection for only the

CEC was written down at the time, when the Election Commission only consisted

of him. Now, the same protection needs to equally extend to other two

Commissioners, as the protection is meant for the Institution, and not for a person.

6. Similarly, it is an aberration that the expenses of ECI are 'voted' while the

budget of all constitutional authorities like CAG, Supreme Court, UPSC and even

of a relatively young statutory organization like the CVC have their expenses

'charged' upon the Consolidated Fund of India for very valid reasons. The

Commission does not experience comfort in ignoring these administrative and

financial controls particularly in the light of some of the recent utterances and

communications from the Ministry of Law and Justice, which I have separately

taken up with you.

7. There are other reforms, too, that require to be addressed urgently so that our

democracy becomes qualitatively that much better. I have enclosed these

proposals along with explanatory notes in three categories: those requiring

Constitutional amendments, those requiring amendment of the Law and those

requiring amendment ofRules. I would like to bring to your kind notice that some

proposals which are of technical nature and require only amendment of Rules

within the competence of the Ministry of Law and Justice, have also been pending

for a long time. This raises questions about the lack of political will, which causes

us deep distress.

8. The Commission became greatly hopeful following the initiative taken by

Dr. Veerappa Moily, former Minister for Law & Justice, who jointly with ECI held

countrywide consultations for forging a consensus on electoral reforms, during

December 2010 to June 2011. This hope became even stronger when his successor

and the present Minister promised the necessary legislation. A national

consultation was scheduled to be held at New Delhi in July 2011; that is almost a

year back. It was later understood that the Government is instead thinking of

holding an all-party meet. While the all-party meeting is the appropriate and

welcome forum for finalizing and accepting the reform proposals, we are anxious

about the inordinate delay in the outcome. Besides, the Commission would like its

professional views to be placed before any all-party meeting, whenever it takes

place.

~

9. I am sure under your able stewardship and guidance, the Government and

Parliament would pay an immediate attention to the long pending reforms, lest

these issues again become a subject of public ridicule and agitation. We are

already witnessing signs of such restlessness and some of the leading civil society

groups, who are in the forefront of Lokpal related agitation, have already met the

Commission weeks back, and are repeatedly demanding an urgent time-bound

action. This aspect needs to be taken seriously.

The Election Commission of India most sincerely looks forward to your

intervention in this matter.

With kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

~

<~~.--.-- ?--t(" (S.Y. Quraishi) e-

Dr. Manmohan Singh, Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, South Block, New Delhi.

Sec:tlClf}. (:·<·:c·.-.~·r

Prime :\1.i'\~: :';; eli: 1'-~ to.: .,\/ 1);,J.lli

Electoral Reforms Proposals

A. Proposals involving amendment of the Constitution

1. Constitutional protection for all members of the Commission and independent Secretariat for the Commission

• Commission is now a three member body comprising the Chief Election

Commissioner (CEC) and two Election Commissioners (ECs).

• ECs are at par with the CEC as far as decision making power is concerned.

• In order to ensure independence of the Commission and to keep it insulated

from external pressure, clause (5) of Article 324 of the Constitution provides

protection to the CEC In the matter of removability from office; CEC enjoys

same protection as available to a Judge of the Supreme Court. However, ECs

do not have such protection. Constitutional provision with regard to ECs is

that they shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of

the CEC.

• Proposal of the Commission is to provide same protection to ECs as

provided to the CEC in the matter of removability from office. This will

strengthen the independence of the Commission. Independence envisaged in

the Constitution is for the institution and not for individual alone. Therefore,

for ensuring total independence of the Commission, it is necessary to provide

the same protection to all members of the Commission.

Date ofproposal-15th July, 1998. Reiterated in 22nd November, 1999, July 2004 & 22 January 2010

2. Budget of the Commission to be 'charged'

• The administrative expenditure of the Commission is a voted expenditure.

1

• The Commission has proposed that the expenditure of the Commission

should be charged on the consolidated fund. A charged budget would also

symbolic of the independence of the Commission.

• The govt. had accepted the Commission's proposal in 1994 and introduced a

Bill titled the Election Commission (Charging of Expenses on the Consolidated

Fund of India) Bill 1994 , in the House of the People, but the Bill lapsed

without being passed on the dissolution of that House in 1996.

Date ofproposal-.July 2004

3. Independent Secretariat for the Commission

• Commission should have an independent Secretariat on the lines of the lok

Sabha, Rajya Sabha and Registries of the Supreme Court and High Courts. An

independent Secretariat will enable the Commission to choose and appoint

officials considered suitable by the Commission without any interference from

the executive.

Date ofproposal- is" July, 1998. Reiterated in July, 2004.

B. Proposals involving amendment of Act

1. De-criminalization of politics

• For preventing persons with criminal background from becoming

legislators, the Commission has made a proposal for disqualifying (from

contesting election) a person against whom charges have been framed

by a Court for an offence punishable by imprisonment of 5 years or

more.

• Under the existing law (secnon-s, ROP Act, 51) there is a disqualification

once a person is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of two years or

2

'~..... : C)("n" . ,'-- . . :c;;r

: .,[ :\.

1 more (in the case of certain offences mentioned in sub-section (1) of

Section-8, conviction itself leads to disqualification, even without any

sentence of imprisonment).

• The Commission's proposal is for disqualification even prior to conviction,

provided the Court has framed charges. The Commission is of the view

that keeping a person, who is accused of serious criminal charges and

where the Court is prime facie satisfied about his involvement in the crime

and consequently framed charges, out of electoral arena would be a

reasonable restriction in larger public interest.

• The argument against the Commission's proposal is that under the judicial

philosophy in the country, a person is deemed to be innocent until proved

gulltv. In this context, it needs to be noted that 2/3 rd of the prisoners in

India are under trials, yet to be convicted. However, their fundamental

rights are curbed even before conviction by keeping them in prison.

Therefore, temporarily suspending the right to contest election pending

final order of the Court should not be seen as a major issue.

• As a precaution against foisting false cases on the eve of election, it was

suggested that only those cases in which charges are framed six months

prior to an election may be taken into account for that election.

Date on which proposal was made - is" July, 1998. Reiterated in November, 1999, July 2004 and October 2006.

2. Political parties reforms

• Political parties are registered with the Commission under the provisions

of Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Under this

Section, any group of citizens can be registered as a political party by

moving an application with the Election Commission giving the requisite

particulars and documents. There are nearly 1300 registered un

recognized political parties apart from the 52 recognized political parties.

3

A large number of registered un-recognized political parties do not seem ~

to have serious interest or desire to contest elections. At the 2009 Lok

Sabha elections, only 322 registered un-recognized political parties put up

candidates.

• There is no provision in the law to de-register a party even if it does not

contest any election for decades. Political parties which have become

defunct also stay on the rolls of the Commission.

• The Commission has proposed that under Section 29A of the

Representation of the People Act, 1951, another clause may be

introduced authorizing the Election Commission to issue necessary

orders regulating registration and de-registration of political parties.

• The political parties should be legally required to get their accounts

audited annually and to publish the audited accounts so that the accounts

are in public domain for scrutiny. The Commission is of the view that

there should be transparency in the fund raising and expenditure of

political parties.

• Political parties should be required to conduct periodic internal elections

in free and fair manner.

• Income tax exemption for donations should be given only for those

political parties which contest election and win seats in the

Parliament/State Legislature.

Date ofproposals _15th July, 1998. Reiterated in July, 2004 and in March and July, 2006.

3. Misuse of religion for electoral gain

• The Uberhan Ayodhya Commission of Inquiry recommended, inter alia,

that complaints of misuse of religion for electoral gain should be speedily

investigated into by the Election Commission.

4

Section Officer

• The Commission has communicated its view that such investigation

should be carried out by the investigating agencies of the State as the

commission does not have the wherewithal to conduct such investigation.

• A Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha in 1994 (R.P. (second amendment)

Bill, 1994], in which an amendment was proposed providing for provision

to question before a High Court, acts of misuse of religion by political

parties. The Bill lapsed on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha in 1996. The

Commission has suggested that the provisions proposed in that Bill

should be considered again.

Date ofproposal _29 th January, 2010.

4. Amendment of law to make 'paid news' an electoral offence

• The Commission is of the view that 'paid news' plays a very vitiating role in

the context of free and fair elections. The public, in general attaches

greater value in news report as distinguished from advertisements by

political parties and candidates. 'Paid news' is masquerading as news and

publishes advertisements in the garb of news items, totally misleading the

electors. To make matter worse, the whole exercise involves use of

unaccounted money and under reporting of election expenses in the

accounts of election expenses of the candidates indulging in the

malpractice. The Commission sees 'paid news' as a deceit on adversely

affected contesting candidates and the electorate. This needs to be dealt

with firmly.

• The Commission has proposed that amendment should be made in the

Representation of the People Act, 1951, to provide therein publishing

and abetting the publishing of 'paid news' for furthering the prospect of

election of any candidate or for prejudicially affecting the prospect of

election of any candidate as an electoral offence under chapter-tll of

5

\'0 Part-VII of Representation of People Act, 1951 with exemplary

punishment of a minimum of two years imprisonment.

Date ofproposal- 3,dFebruary, 2011.

5. Government sponsored advertisements

• Govt. departments publish advertisements through Print & Electronic

Media on achievements of the Government, new schemes/programmes,

etc.

• For ensuring level playing field in elections, the Commission has suggested

that for six months prior to the date of expiry of the term of the House,

there should be a ban on advertisements on achievements of the

Government.

• Advertisements/dissemination of information on poverty alleviation and

health related schemes could be exempted from the ban.

Date ofproposal- s"July, 2004.

6. Punishment for electoral offences to be enhanced

• Undue influence and bribery at elections are electoral offences under

Sections 1718 and 171(, respectively, of the IPC. These offences are non

cognizable offences, with punishment provision of one year's

imprisonment, or fine, or both.

• Under Section 171-G, publishing false statement in connection with

election with intent to affect the result of an election, is punishable with

fine only.

• Section 171 H provides that incurring or authorizing expenditure for

promoting the election prospects of a candidate is an offence. However,

punishment for an offence under this Section is a meager fine of Rs.500/

6 , , "',7' .-' .. .-.... -:'" .." U

\\ • These punishments were provided as far back as in 1920. Considering the

gravity of the offences under the aforesaid sections in the context of free

and fair elections, the punishments under all the four sections should be

enhanced and these offences should be made cognizable.

Date ofproposal- February, 1992

7. Prohibition of Campaign during the Last 48 Hours

• Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, prohibits

electioneering activities by way of public meetings, public performance,

processions, advertisements through cinematograph, television or similar

apparatus during the period of 48 hours before the time fixed for

conclusion of poll.

• Political advertisements in TV and Radio are prohibited during these 48

hours under the above provisions.

• Since this Section does not refer to print media, the political parties and

candidates issue advertisements in newspapers during this period

including on the day of poll. They also undertake house to house visits.

• Section 126 should apply equally to the print media also. A distorted

advertisement in print media on the poll day leaves the other candidates

with no opportunity to undo the damage.

• House to house visits by candidates/supporters should also be

specifically prohibited during the said period of 48 hours, to allow the

electors period of tranquil to decide their option. Necessary

amendments should be carried out in Section 126.

Date of proposal- This proposal was made in the background note for the regional consultations on electoral reforms in December, 2010.

St~(fI·~)n ()ffIGCr Prime \'ll''\:~-:i::f':; OfIie

jc~,:e\:'I/ L.>e,;ll::.i 7

\ 'V -_ 8. Punishment for false affidavit by candidates

• Section -125A of R.P. Act, 51, provides that furnishing false information in

the affidavit filed by the candidate is an offence punishable by

imprisonment upto six months or with fine.

• There is no clear provision for follow-up action in the event of candidates

filing false affidavits.

• There are several complaints of false statements in affidavits. False

statements mislead the electors.

• In order to strengthen the disclosure provision, the Commission has

recommended that Section-12SA of R.P. Act, 51, should be amended to

provide that any complaint regarding false statement in the affidavit

filed by the candidates in connection with the nomination paper shall be

filed before the Returning Officer (RO) concerned within a period of 30

days from the date of declaration of the election and that it shall be the

responsibility of the ROto take proper follow-up action.

• Alternatively, complaint can lie directly to the Magistrate Court.

Date ofproposal- 3,dFebruary, 2011

9. Negative/neutral voting

• In the ballot paper and on the ballot unit, after the particulars relating to

the last candidate, there should be provisions for a column 'none of the

above' to enable a voter to reject all candidates if he so desires.

• If an elector does not want to vote for any of the candidates, he may

either not turn up for voting, or he may come to the polling station and

have his name entered in the register of voters and then inform the

presiding officer that he does not want to vote for any candidate. In this

process, the decision of the elector is known to those present in the

polling station, thus violating the secrecy of his decision. If the elector

8

decides to stay away from polling station, there is a danger that someone

may attempt to cast vote against the name of such elector by

impersonating.

• 'None of the above' option' would protect the interest of the electors.

Date ofproposal-10th December, 2001. Reiterated in July, 2004.

10. Amendment of law to provide for filing of election petition even against defeated candidates on the ground of corrupt practice

• As per the existing law, election petition (EP) can be filed only for

challenging an election.

• If a defeated candidate has indulged in corrupt practice, there is no

provision for election petition or a declaration against such candidate.

• The Commission has recommended that the law should be amended to

provide for filing of EP in cases of commission of corrupt practice by a

losing candidate.

• In this context, Commission has also suggested that the period by which

the candidates are required to file their account of election expenses

should be reduced to 20 days from the present 30 days, so that more time

is available for others to scrutinize the accounts and to take the matter to

the Court in Election Petitions in cases of spending in excess of the ceiling.

Date ofproposal-24th April, 2009.

11.Restoring the cycle of biennial retirement in the Rajya Sabha/Legislative Councils

• Under constitutional provtslons.t/s'" of members of Rajya Sabha are to

retire every two years.

• In some States the biennial ejection schedule got disturbed as the

Legislative Assembly was not in existence at the relevant time.

~. 9

Section Officer Prime ;v1in\s~er's Offi.

New Delhi

,,\• Consequently, biennial retirement schedule also got disturbed.

• Commission's proposal is for amending the law so as to ensure

retirement of 1/3rd of the members in the Rajya Sabha and State

legislative councils after every two years.

• There was a petition in the Patna High Court last year on this issue. The

High Court, in its order, observed that the Government and the

Commission may sort out the matter for a solution.

Date ofproposal - February 1992

12.Use of common electoral rolls

• Local bodies' elections are conducted by the State Election Commissions of

the respective States.

• For preparing the electoral rolls for local bodies' elections, there is no uniform

law or procedure.

• Some States adopt the rolls prepared by the EC I while a few States prepare

the rolls separately.

• Local laws of the States should be amended to provide that electoral rolls

prepared by the Commission will be used for local bodies elections with

necessary modifications/re-arrangement. This will simplify the process of

preparation of rolls and also avoid unnecessary expenditure.

Date of Proposal - zr" November, 1999 Reiterated in July 2004.

13.Expenditure ceiling for election from Graduates' and Teachers' constituencies

• The expenditure ceiling for candidates applies only for the Lok Sabha and

Assembly elections.

• Expenditure ceiling should also be applicable in the case of legislative

council elections from Graduates' and Teachers' constituencies also (at half

10

the amount of the Assembly constituency ceiling). The candidate should

also be required to submit the account of election expenses.

Date of Proposal - so" May 2007

14.Ban on transfer of election officers on the eve of election

• In the case of general election, there should be a ban against transferring

any election related officer without the concurrence of the Commission for

a period of six months prior to the expiry of the term of the House.

Date ofproposal- is" July, 1998. Reiterated in July, 2004.

15.Making of false declaration in connection with elections to be an offence

• There should be provision for penal action against those making false

declaration in connection with election.

• There is a provision in the ROP Act, 50 (Section-31) providing for punishment

with imprisonment upto one year for making false declaration in connection

with preparation/revision of electoral roll. There is no such provision in ROP

Act, 51, in relation to conduct of elections.

• The proposal is to provide for a similar punishment for false declarations in

connection with conduct of elections also.

Date ofProposal July 1998 Reiterated in July 2004.

16.Same number of proposers for all candidates

• At present, the candidates of recognized parties need only one proposer

while the other candidates require 10 proposers. The Commission suggested

that in order to remove confusion, number of proposers may be made

11

uniform with 10 proposers for a/l candidates. Uniformity with regard to ,\'

number of proposers will help avoid confusion.

22nd Date of Proposal - November} 1999 Reiterated in July 2004.

17. Facility of enrolment in electoral roll to husband of a service voter

• Under the existing law [Sub-Sections {3} and {4} of Section 20 of

Representation of the People Act. 1950L a person having his service

qualification (member of armed forces} para-military forces, armed police

force of a State who is serving outside that State and a person employed

under the Govt. of India in a post outside India) have been given the facility

of registration in the electoral roll of their native place.

• Under Sub-Section (6) of Section 20, wife of a declared office holder or

service voter who is ordinarily residing with such person also has the facility

of enrolment in the native place. However, if the declared office

holder/service voter is a female, the husband of such person does not have

the facility of enrolment in the native place even if he is ordinarily residing

with the office holder/service voter.

• The Commission has suggested that husband of a declared office holder and

husband of a service voter should also be extended the facility of enrolment

in the native place if he is ordinarily residing with such office holder/service

voter, by suitably amending Sub-Section (6) of Section 20 of Representation

of the People Act, 1950.

Date ofproposal si" May} 2011

18. Power to requisition premises for election purpose

• Section 160 of R.P. Act, 51 provides for requisitioning of premises for

setting up polling station or for storage of ballot boxes.

12

U ;;'1,:0 ;,j, y~ f)'.c::Lj

• In the conduct of ejections, services of Central Police Force is used. For

accommodation of such Police Force, premises are required to be

requisitioned, usually for short period.

• The Allahabad High Court in an order dated 23-04-2004 in Committee of

Management, Jagat Taran Girls Degree College, Allahabad Vs. State of UP

and Drs. , held that Section 160 does not empower requisitioning of

premises for accommodating Police Force.

• The Commission has proposed that Section 160 of RP Act, 51, may be

amended so as to provide for requisitioning premises for any election

related purposes instead of restricting it to only for the purpose of polling

stations and storage of ballot boxes.

Date ofproposal 1st March, 2012.

C. Proposals for amendment of Rules for which the law Ministry is the competent authority

1. Totalizer for counting of votes

• Elections to Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies are conducted using

the EVMs. Rules regarding counting of votes in EVMs provide for counting

polling station -wise.

• The Commission has proposed amendment of the Rules to provide for the

use of totalizer for counting of votes at EVM elections.

• Using totalizer I it would be possible to take out the results of votes polled

in a group of 14 EVMs together as against the present practice of counting

votes polling station wise.

• In such a system of counting, the trend of voting in individual polling station

areas would not be known. This will prevent intimidation and post election

victimization of electors.

• The proposal was referred to a parliamentary committee in 2009. Date ofproposai-at" November, 2008.

13

Section Officer Prime "if:;· .st.: ~ 's O~fice

, -.c '';\', Dl:h 1

2. Amendment of Form 26

• Candidates are required to file two affidavits alongwith their nomination

papers - one in Form 26 and the other in the format prescribed by the

Commission in pursuance of the Supreme Court's order dated 13-03-2003 in

Writ Petition (civil) No. 490 of 2002 and connected petitions.

• Commission has proposed that the two affidavits may be merged into one

by amending Form 26 suitably (incorporating therein the format prescribed

by the Commission.

• A single affidavit will be convenient for the candidates as well as for the

electors who want to scrutinize the contents of the affidavit.

Proposal made initially in June 2005, and revised proposal sent on 02-12-11.

3. Amendment of Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (RE Rules, 60)

• The proposal is for amendment of the Rule 32 in the RE Rules, 1960 so as to

enable the Electoral Registration Officers to weed out old rolls after a

period of one year after revision has taken place.

• Under the present rule, all papers related to revision of rolls have to be

preserved till one year after the completion of the next intensive revision.

Now, de novo intensive revision of rolls is not undertaken with the result that

the old papers can not be weeded out.

• The proposal is to discard the reference to intensive revision for disposal of

the old papers.

Proposal made in April 2009

4. Amendment of Rule-27 of RE Rules, 1960

• By the amendment made to Section 24 of RP Act, SO, appeal against the

decision of the Electoral Registration Officer on claims/objections during the

14

,~

continuous updation period can be made before DM/Collector/equivalent

officer.

• However, Rule-27 of the RE Rules mentions only CEO as the appellate

authority. This rule also needs to be amended to include OM, Collector etc.

Proposal made in March 2010

(The Law Ministry had drafted an amendment to the Rules recently. However, the amendment is yet to be notified).

S. Amendment of Rule to provide for mandatorily mentioning the identification document produced by the electors

• The proposal was that there should be a column in the register of voters

(Form 17A) for mentioning the details of the identification documents

produced by the electors.

Proposal made in March 2007

15

FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

SF-POD DAREEDA {11e'.6)Shri Dheeraj Gupta, Director ED335982497IN

& Appellate Authority Count@r No:l\uP-Codf I P To:DHIRAJ 5UPT~!SOUiK BLOCK

Prime Minister's Office (PMO) MDELHI, PIN:ll'le1 , FrO.IS C A6GRAWAi 1775 DAREEDAK, DAREEDAKAtAH DE.South block,New Delhi-l10101 Wt:2fgraas, Att:2.... , 12/1612.12 , U:i2 iaH!s:Rs.3.32«Track on M••• indiapost.gov.in»

Sir

I vide my RTI petition dated 16.04.2012 sought detailed and complete information

together with related documents/file-notings/corrcspondence etc on under-mentioned

aspects also relating to news-item from Dainik Jagran (14.04.2012):

1. Is it true that Chief Election Commissioner Shri SY Quereshi has sent some letter

to Honourable Prime Minister appealing for urgent poll-reforms, as also referred in

enclosed news-clipping , 2. Copy ofthe said letter (together with enclosures) from Shri SY Quercshi as referred

in query above

3. Complete and detailed information together with related

documents/correspondence/file-notings etc on action taken on the said letter as

referred in queries above from Chief Election Commissioner Shri SY Quereshi, by

PMO and/or some other public-authority where the said letter of Shri SY Quereshi

might have been forwarded

4. Copy of the reply from Honourable Prime Minister and/or PMO to Shri SY

Quereshi enclosing also file-notings/correspondence/documents etc on drafting the

said reply

5. Copies of letters in last five years from successive Chief Election Commissioners

demanding electoral reforms, together with copies of replies from Honourable

Prime Minister and/or PMO


documents!correspondence/file-notings etc on action taken on the said letters of ,Chief Election Commissioners in last five years by PMO and/or some other public

authority where the said letter of Shri SY Quereshi might have been forwarded

7. Date on which any of the electoral reforms were last implemented

8. Elcctoral reforms presently under consideration of Union government

9. Complete and detailed information on steps taken to implement electoral reforms

turgently

10. Any other related or follow-up information

..• 11. File-notings on movement of this RTI petition as well

Learned CPIO vide response No. RTI/1613/2012-PMR dated 08.06.2012 in response to t

query-numbers (2) stated that the documents sought by me attract provisions of section 11

of RTI Act. But section 11 clearly states that this section can be invoked only within five .•

days of receipt of RTI petition, which was evidently not done. Hence I appeal that ~

documents sought under query (2) of my RTI petition may kindly be directed to be

provided but now free-of-cost under section 7(6) ofRTI Act.

t It is admittedly a serious matter that Union Council of Ministers has been indecisive (if it

is really so) on matters taken up by various Chief Election Commissioners in last five

years, information sought under query (6) therefore is covered by section 8(2) of RTI Act

which stipulates that a public authority may allow access to information if public interest

in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.

Honourable Mr Justice S Ravindra Bhatt ofDelhi High Court in the matter "Bhagat Singh

Vs. CIC (WP. (C) No.3114/2007) .'.' has held that the Right to Information Act being a right

based enactment is akin to a welfare measure and as such should receive liberal

interpretation. Under the circumstances, I appeal that learned CPIO may kindly be

provided sought information (point-wise) together with sought and related documents but

now to be provided free-of-cost under section 7(6) ofRTI Act. It is prayed accordingly.

Humbly submitted ,f\\;\~& .\} V

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL

(Guinness Record Holder & RTf Activist)

1775 Kucha Lattushah

Dariba, Chandni Chowk

DELHI 110006 (India)

Mobile9810033711 Fax 23254036

E-mail [email protected]

Web www.subhashmadhu.com ,12.06.2012


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE South Block

New Delhi -110011 No. RTI/1613/2012-PMR Dated: June, 2012

1VC6 To:

Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal 1775, Kucha Lattushah Dariba, Chandni Chowk Delhi - 110 006

Subject: Follow-up on appeal decision.

Sir,

Please refer to your letter dated 12.5.2012, received on 14.5.2012, preferring an appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and decision dated 25.5.2012 of the appellate authority in this office.

2. In compliance with the appeal decision dated 25.5.2012 the matter was referred to the office for providing fresh inputs. Inputs provided by the office are enclosed (1 page). Regarding point no. (2), the office has informed that the documents sought by you attract the provisions of section 11 of the RTI Act. The response in this regard will be provided to you after due process as envisaged in section 11 of the Act is completed.

3. For the purpose of section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, Shri Dheeraj Gupta, Director, is the appellate authority in respect of this office

Yours faithfully,

Encl: As above (1 page). ~~ (K. Salil Kumar)

Under Secretary and Central Public Information Officer

~ : 23074072

RTIJ1613/2012-PMR

Shri Subhash Chandra Agarwal, rio Chandni Chowk, Delhi vide letter dated 16.4.2012 had sought information from this office, under Right to Information Act, 2005.

2. The information sought by the applicant is as under:

(1) Is it true thai: Chief Election Commissioner Shri SY.Quereshi has sent some letter to Honourable Prime Minister appealing for urgent poll-reforms, as also referred in enclosed new-clipping.

(2) Copy of the said letter (together with enclosures) from Shri S.Y.Qureshi as referred in query above

(3) Complete and detailed information together with related documents/correspondence/filenotings etc on action taken on the said letter as referred in queries above from Chief Election Commissioner Shri S. Y. Qureshi, by PMO and lor some other public-authority where the said letter of Shri S.Y.Quereshi might have been forwarded

(4) Copy of the reply from Honourable Prime Minister and I or PMO to Shri S.Y.Quereshi . enclosing also file notingslcorrespondencel documents etc on drafting the said reply

(5) Copies of letters in last five years from successive Chief Election Cornmissiosers demanding electoral reforms, together with copies of replies from Honourable Prime Minister and I or PMO

(6) Complete and detailed information together with related documents/correspondence/filenotings etc on action taken on the said letters of Chief Election Commissioners in last five years by PMO and I or some other public-authority where the said letter of Shri S.Y.Quereshi might have been forwarded

3. Shri Subhash Chandra Agarwal, vide letter dated 12.5.2012, not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, has preferred an appeal stating that

"CPIO had not specified how exemption under section 8(i) was applicable that too on all the queries. CPIO must have specified in clear terms about the subject-matterls of various queries (point-wise) if there are still not decided by council of ministers for five long years. Not all the queries can be covered under section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act.

The First Appellate Authority vide his ordersdated 25.5.2012 directed the CPIO to seek point-wise inputs afresh from the office on points 2 to 6 of the request and to furnish suitable response within 3 weeks."

4. The following are the inputs:

Speed Post AD Ri2ht to Information

PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE

New Delhi - 110011

No. RTI/1613/2012-PMR Dated: 21~ /2lJ u,


Subject: Decision on appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005

Sir,

Please refer to your letter dated 12.5.2012, received on 14.5.2012, preferring an appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

2. It is observed that you made a right to information application dated 16.4.2012, received on 17.4.2012, with reference to a news clipping and seeking information on "letters sent by the Chief Election Commissioner Shri S.Y. Qureshi and CECs in the last 5 years on electoral reforms"

3. The CPIO, PMO, vide Office Memorandum dated 18.4.2012, transferred the application to the Legislative Department under section 6(3) of the Act in respect of points 7 to 9. Subsequently, based on inputs from the office, the CPIO, vide letter dated 8.5.2012, furnished response in the affirmative on point (1) and invoking exemption under section 8(1)(i) of the Act.

4. In the appeal, you have stated as under:

"The learned CPIO had not specified how exemption under section 8(i) was applicable that too on all the queries. CPIO must have specified in clear terms about the subject-matterls of various queries (point-wise) if these are still not decided by council of ministers for five long years. Not all the queries can be covered under section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act".

2

No. RTI/1613/2012-PMR

5. In view of submissions made in the appeal, the CPIO is directed, through endorsed copy of this letter, to seek point-wise inputs afresh from the office on points 2 to 6 of the request and to furnish suitable response to you within 3 weeks of issue of this letter.

6. Appeal is disposed of with direction as above. (J~~\o/

(Sanjay Lohiya) Director & Appellate Authority

Copy to:

CPIO, PMO

FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

Shri Dheeraj Gupta, Director

& Appellate Authority

Prime Minister's Office (PMO)

South block, New Delhi-ll0l0l

Sir

I vide my RTI petition dated 16.04.2012 sought detailed and complete information

together with related documents/file-notings/correspondence etc on under-mentioned


1. Is it true that Chief Election Commissioner Shri SY Quereshi has sent some letter to

Honourable Prime Minister appealing for urgent poll-reforms, as also referred in enclosed

news-clipping

2. Copy of the said letter (together with enclosures) from Shri SY Quereshi as referred in

query above

3. Complete and detailed information together with related documents/correspondence/fiIe

notings etc on action taken on the said letter as referred in queries above from Chief

Election Commissioner Shri SY Quereshi, by PMO and/or some other public-authority

where the said letter of Shri SY Quereshi might have been forwarded

4. Copy of the reply from Honourable Prime Minister and/or PMO to Shri SY Quereshi

enclosing also file-notings/correspondence/documents etc on drafting the said reply

5. Copies of letters in last five years from successive Chief Election Commissioners

demanding electoral reforms, together with copies of replies from Honourable Prime

Minister and/or PMO

6. Complete and detailed information together with related documents/correspondence/fiIe

notings etc on action taken on the said letters of Chief Election Commissioners in last

five years by PMO and/or some other public-authority where the said letter of Shri SY

Quereshi might have been forwarded

7. Date on which any of the electoral reforms were last implemented

8. Electoral reforms presently under consideration of Union government


urgently

10. Any other related or follow-up information

11. File-notings on movement of this RTI petition as well

Learned CPIO vide response No. RTI/1613/20l2-PMR dated 08.05.2012 in response to

query-numbers (2) and (6) of RTI petition invoked section 8(l)(i) of RTI Act. But the

learned CPIO had not specified how exemption under section 8(i) was applicable that too

on all the queries! CPIO must have specified in clear terms about the subject-matter/s of

various queries (point-wise) if these are still not decided by council of ministers for five

long years. Not all the queries can be covered under section 8(1)(i) of RTI Act.

Otherwise also since it is admittedly a serious matter that Union Council of Ministers has

been indecisive (if it is really so) on matters taken up by various Chief Election

Commissioners in last five years, information sought is covered by section 8(2) of RTI

Act which stipulates that a public authority may allow access to information if public

interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.

Honourable Mr Justice S Ravindra Bhatt of Delhi High Court in the matter "Bhagat

Singh Vs. CIC (W.P. (C) No.3114/2007)" has held that the Right to Information Act being

a right based enactment is akin to a welfare measure and as such should receive liberal

interpretation. Under the circumstances, I appeal that learned CPIO may kindly be

provided sought information (point-wise) together with sought and related documents but

now to be provided free-of-cost under section 7(6) ofRTI Act. It is prayed accordingly.

Humbly submitted

~~~ \.

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL

(Guinness Record Holder & RTf Activist)

1775 Kucha Lattushah

Dad ba, Chandni Chowk

DELHI 110006 (India)

Mobile9810033711 Fax 23254036

E-mail [email protected]

Web www.subhashrnadhu.corn

12.05.2012

,

~\ ,



South Block New Delhi -110 011

No. RT1/1613/2012-PMR Dated: May, 2012 ()~


Subject: Application under Right to Information Act, 2005.

Sir,

Reference is invited to this office's memorandum of even no. dated 18.4.2012 transferring application-dated 16.4.2012. received on 17.4.2012 regarding point no. 7 to 9, to the Legislative Department, under section 6(3) of the Act, on the above noted subject. The matter was also referred to the office for providing inputs on point no. 1 to 6. Input provided by the office in respect of your request for information, is enclosed (1 page). The office has invoked exemption under section 8(1)(i) of the Act.

2. As regards point 11 of your application whereby you are requested for copy of note sheet, it is informed that under RTI Act, 2005 information to be provided relates to information "held" by a public authority. Your demand for note sheet of file where your RTI application is dealt is for future action as no note sheet was "held" at the time your application was received. Point no. 10 of your application is not specific.

3. For the purpose of section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, Shri Dheeraj Gupta, Director, is the appellate authority in respect of this office.

Yours faithfully,

Ene!: As above(1 pages) ~ (Sanjukta Ray)

Deputy Secretary and Central Public Information Officer

'f!5 : 2307 4072

RTII1613/2012-PMR

Shri Subhash Chandra Agarwal, rio Chandni Chowk, Delhi vide letter dated 16.4.2012 has sought information from this office, under Right to Information Act, 2005.

2. The information sought by the applicant is as under:

(1) Is it true that Chief Election Commissioner Shri S.Y.Quereshi has sent some letter to Honourable Prime Minister appealing for urgent pollreforms, as also referred in enclosed new-clipping.

(2) Copy of the said letter (together with enclosures) from Shri S.Y.Qureshi as referred in query above

(3) Complete and detailed information together with related documents/correspondence/file-notings etc on action taken on the said letter as referred in queries above from Chief Election Commissioner Shri S. Y. Qureshi, by PMO and I or some other public-authority where the said letter of Shri S.Y.Quereshi might have been forwarded»

(4) Copy of the reply from Honourable Prime Minister and I or PMO to Shri S.Y.Quereshi enclosing also file notings/correspondencel documents etc on drafting the said reply

(5) , Copies of letters in last five years from successive Chief Election Commissioners demanding electoral reforms, together with copies of replies from Honourable Prime Minister and lor PMO

(6) Complete and detailed information together with related 'documents/correspondence/file-notings etc' on action taken on the said letters of Chief Election Commissioners in last five years by'PMO and I or some other public-authority where the said letter of Shri S.Y.Quereshi might have been forwarded

3. The following inputs are provided:

Point no. (1): Yes Point no. (2) to (6): Exemption may be sought under section 8(1)(i) of the

Right to Information Act, 2005.

By Speed Post F.No.4(45)/2012-RTI Government ofIndia

Ministry of Law & Justice Legislative Department

***

.: New Delhi, the 4th May, 2012. To

Shri Subhash Chandra Agarawal, 1775, Kucha Lattushah, Dariba, Chandni Chock, Delhi-110006.

Subject: Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Sir, I am directed to refer to your RTI application dated 16-4-2012 received in this Department

on 25-4-2012 through Prime Minister's Office regarding information sought for at point No.7 to 9 of the application under RTI, 2005 on the above mentioned subject and to state that the concerned Administrative Unit of this Department has furnished the following information in response to your RTI application:

"As regards point No.7, it is stated that the Central Government, after consulting the Election Commission, has amended the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 vide notification No.S.0.425(E) dated 23.2.2011. The said notification is available on the website of this Ministry i.e. www.law.min in.

"As regards point Nos. 8 & 9 regarding Electoral Reforms, it is stated that the electoral scenario of the country has been continuously changing, has necessitated reforms of electoral law on several occasions. The electoral reforms is a continuous and on-going process and can be carried out through consensus amongst the political parties. Further, in the light of the experience gained during elections, recommendations of the Election Commission of India, the proposals from different sources including political parties, eminent men in the public life and the deliberations in the Legislatures and various public bodies, the successive Governments have taken a number of measures, from time to time, to bring about electoral reforms; though need to effect a comprehensive package of electoral reforms cannot be gainsaid. It is further stated that with a view to carrying out comprehensive electoral reforms, a Core-Committee has been constituted on the 1sl

October, 2010 under the Chairmanship of an Additional Solicitor General. Seven Regional consultations have been held and an all party Consultation is also under consideration On the basis of the inputs received or as may be received in all these consultations, legislative process as may be considered necessary will be initiated by the Government in due course'

(Jose Thomas) Deputy Secretary & CPIO

Copy to:-Ms. Sanjukta Ray, Deputy secretary and CPIO, Prime Minister's Office, South Block New Delhi110001, w.r.t. their RTI/1613/2012-PMR dated 18.4 2012 for information.

Note:- Dr. Sanjay Singh, Joint Secretary, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law & Justice, Room No.423'A' Wing, 4th Floor, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110001 is the 1st Appellate Authority for filing the first appeal, if any.

Right to Information


South Block New Delhi-IlO OIl

No. RTI/1613/2012-PMR Dated: \ C6 10412012

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Application under Right to Information Act, 2005.

An application dated 16/04/2012 received on 17/04/2012 from Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal on the above noted subject is transferred under section 6(3) (ii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, for action as appropriate.

An amount of ~10/- in the form of a Postal Order has been received from the applicant as application fee.

~y) Deputy Secretary and

Central Public Information Officer Phone: 2307 4072

Secretary Points 7 To 9 Legislative Department Shashtri Bhavan New Delhi - 110001

Copy by Registered AD to:

Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal You are advised to approach the above public ) 775, Kucha Lattushah authority for further information regarding the

J Dariba, Chandni Chowk matter. Response in respect of this office will be Delhi - 110 006 provided in due course.

UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMAnON ACT

Central Public Information Officer

Prime Minister's Office (PMO)

South block, New Delhi-I 10101

Sir

I will be obliged if your honour kindly provides me detailed and complete information

together with related documents/file-notings/correspondence etc on under-mentioned


1. Is it true that Chief Election Commissioner Shri SY Quereshi has sent some letter

to Honourable Prime Minister appealing for urgent poll-reforms, as also referred

in enclosed news-clipping

2. Copy of the said lett ir 'ogether with enclosures) from Shri SY Quereshi as

referred in query above


documents/correspond;?nce/file-notings etc on action taken on the said letter as

referred in queries above from Chief Election Commissioner Shri SY Quereshi,

by PMO and/or some other public-authority where the said letter of Shri SY

Quereshi might have been forwarded

4. Copy of the reply from Honourable Prime Minister and/or PMO to Shri SY

Quereshi enclosing also file-notings!correspondence/documents etc on drafting

the said reply

5. Copies ofletters in last fi-e years from successive Chief Election Commissioners

demanding electoral r efc.rns, together with copies of replies from Honourable

Prime Minister and/or PMO

6. Complete and derailed information together with related

documents/correspondencdfile-noting:3 etc on action taken on the said letters of

Chief Election Commissioners in last five years by PMO and/or some other

public-authority where the said letter of Shri SY Quereshi might have been

forwarded

7. Date on which any of tilt' electoral reforms were last implemented

8. Electoral reforms presently under consideration of Union government


urgently

\ O. An'] other related or fo\\o'tli-u"Qlnformat\m\

\ \ . Ek-notlugs on movemem ofthis RTI tipe inon as well

In case queries relate to some other public-auth()t\\\l T"\\e"s t f'. . . oJ,}' <1 e ransrer this RT1 petition to

CPlO there under secti 6(3) , R . . ron . 01 II Act. Postal-order number 92£ 446107 for rupees

ten IS enclosed towards RTI fees in name of 'Accounts Officer' as per DoPT circular No.

F.10/9/2008-IR dated 05/12/21'08 , " ~ ; ,:7 ~ - '"

Regards

/~ ..

,. t·

\r

SUBBASH CHANDRA AGRAv, AL

!Gmnness Record Holder & RTf Activist) ,.... 1775 Kucha Lattushah \

Sf DAREEBA KALAN {11fjfb> ~::i965499INDariba, Chandni Chowk Counter HOI1.OP~CodtlP

To:CPIO.fRlH£ KINlSTER efFICDELHI 110006 (india) NEW BELHI. PIN:11...1

Mobile9810033711 Fax 23:::540: frol:SUBHASH CHANDRA A6kAilAl • DElHI 6 ~tJ10~rils.

E-mail subhashmadhui:q]sify.c\)n, A.tI12." , 16/14/2.12 • 11:49 Taxts:Rs.l.15«Trlck on ~w.in~iaoost.~ov.ifl»

Web www.subhashmadhuoCJm

ifIRJ ~d «JjmIeMil 1ft1!Jr ~ ill....

16.04.20\2

:! ,A (: f!-AJJ I l( ~ 0 <...t - '2--0 t L

r•

Letter to PM by former CEC SY Quraishi

Documents

Transcript of Letter to PM by former CEC SY Quraishi