The Supreme Court verdict of March 13 reiterating the fundamental right of voters to know about candidates is a significant milestone in the evolution of our democracy. First, it has upheld constitutionalism and strengthened our faith in the institutional vitality and corrective mechanisms in our republic. Second, it provides a priceless opportunity for parties to break out of the shackles of criminal elements and moneybags at the constituency level. Politics as big business, power at any cost, and public office for private gain will simply not do.

Democracy is about peaceful change. If that hope of peaceful transformation is extinguished, all that is left is anarchy or violent upheavals. President Abdul Kalam’s courageous act in returning the patently unconstitutional Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinance 2002 for the reconsideration of the Council of Ministers is a great morale booster for all those who seek peaceful change. This act of diligence and statesmanship helps uphold the letter and spirit our Constitution as few official actions have done in recent times.

If we keep quiet now, the politicians of the country will soon enact a law to deny us the fundamental Right to Information about our prospective candidates.  And we will have only ourselves to blame. Today it is our Right to know, tomorrow it could be our liberty. If murderers and rapists and dacoits are not disqualified, the worst of things becomes possible.

“We will disclose the assets of only the winning candidates and that too, to the presiding officer of the House”

“Only the Parliament has the right to legislate.” – Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, Congress (I);

“Are we supposed to disclose even our electricity and telephone dues and let an ordinary Revenue official have the right to disqualify our nomination?” – an indignant Mr. Arun Jaitley, BJP official spokesperson.

Haven’t we been complaining for long about the sorry state of affairs in India? Whenever two thinking citizens meet, isn’t the conversation inevitably about the extraordinary crisis facing the country – corruption, delay, inefficiency, extortion, criminalization? Why then aren’t we focusing on what can be done, instead of what is wrong? Is it just apathy, or skepticism, or cynicism, or is it something more?

This week marks the 27th anniversary of imposition of ”internal emergency” in this country. That dark chapter in our country’s history saw suspension of basic civil liberties and habeas corpus, and stifling of press freedom. About 100,000 people were incarcerated for daring to speak-up. Contrast this with just 864 persons detained during the whole of US Civil War!

The sorry episode of Shibu Soren has once again focused the nation’s attention on criminalization of politics. The problem of criminalization goes well beyond the political fates of a few individuals. We need to understand the law and its limitations.

The March 13 verdict of the Supreme Court (SC) on candidate disclosures declaring Section 33B of the Representation of the People (3rd Amendment) Act, 2002 (Amendment Act) illegal, null and void, and reiterating its earlier judgment on May 2, 2002, generated a serious countrywide debate on the jurisdiction of courts.

The government and political parties have acted with uncharacteristic speed and dynamism to thwart the disclosure provisions ordered by the Election Commission (EC). The chain of events starting with the Supreme Court judgment on May 2, and culminating with a draft bill circulated by government on July 15 is revealing. Suddenly, the political consensus, which eludes the nation even in testing times, resurfaced! All parties seem to be more or less unanimous that candidates for elective office must not be forced to disclose their criminal record and financial details.