Union Law Minister, Salman Khurshid, admits that electoral reforms are the need of the hour and that framing of criminal charges is enough ground for disqualification of MPs.New Delhi:Sreenivasan Jain: Before we get into the specifics, I think it is important for people to understand the importance of electoral reforms, because many believe that this is really the root cause of corruption. If you really implement this, you can tackle the root causes of corruption which is to do with black money in elections and things like that.
Salman Khurshid: Well the big answer is yes and I think the people who fought about this, people who are experienced about elections, are people who have worked in the system. All will tell you that we have a lot that needs to be done as far as the electoral system is concerned. Both from the point of view of representation, true and honest representation of the people of our country, and also in terms of its implications and impact on corruption and on black money. I think these are two very, very important areas that we need to address.
Sreenivasan Jain: Electoral reform is a very wide canvas and we're talking about a basket of measures which range from internal democracy of political parties to financial transparency and black money, to the criminalization of politics. What the Government seems to be doing at the moment is selectively picking on one area out of all of these, which is to do with criminal candidates, and focusing on that. You're bringing in a very significant change. At the moment you're debarred from fighting elections if you're convicted, but what you're saying is that even if charges are framed against you, in a number of crimes which you have classified as heinous, you could be debarred. That's a very major step.
Salman Khurshid: Yes, but it follows logically from what we have today. What we have today is not that a conviction categorically and clearly puts you out of the race. No. A conviction puts you out of the race provided that your conviction, and not just your sentence, is suspended on appeal. It depends on what order you get from the higher court. If the higher court says that your conviction is suspended, then you can fight elections. If the higher court says that your sentence is suspended, which means you don't go to jail but your conviction stands until such time that the appeal is heard, then you can't fight elections. Now this is a very fine, and I think unacceptable, distinction. So we can certainly move forward and say that if you're convicted then you can't fight elections, irrespective of what the appeal order is, until you're finally acquitted on appeal. That's very clear and I think it's possible to build consensus around that very quickly.
Sreenivasan Jain: Let's move on to the other, more significant aspect. You are saying that apart from the conviction which bars you, you can also be barred if charges are framed against you in a number of heinous crimes, of which you have identified eight or nine. That is a very major step.
Salman Khurshid: Absolutely. Now that is something on which we need an all party consultation. The Law Ministry and the Election Commission held six regional conferences. We've got a lot of ideas that came from different people. Those have all been recorded. Those have all been produced in a document. Now we want to hear from political parties. It's not that the political parties weren't present in these regional consultations, they were, but not at the level at which we would want them to now participate. The Prime Minister hopes to consult political parties in October.
Sreenivasan Jain: Do explain the logic behind the move till such time as that happens. Is the idea prompted by the fact that convictions take so much time in this country? The cases against politicians who have charges framed against them drag on for years and they continue to fight and win elections with impunity. Is that why you want to bring in this change?
Salman Khurshid: That's obviously the reason. If convictions could be done quickly, if trials could proceed within six months' time. We have experimented with courts and they have been exceptionally successful. We have had trials in criminal cases involving foreigners, for instance, as they can't stay here indefinitely and can't keep coming back from abroad to give evidence. We have had convictions within three to six months even in cases involving very, very serious crimes.
Sreenivasan Jain: But that is not happening generally across the board.
Salman Khurshid: It doesn't happen across the board. We need to see whether we can expand the area of exclusion because it doesn't happen across the board. Can we prevent people against whom charges are framed in serious cases? Can we impose upon them the same disqualification that there is after conviction? But obviously this will last only till such time as the conviction or an acquittal comes.
Sreenivasan Jain: Two questions are being raised by political parties. One, of course, is whether this will lead to the practice of framing of false cases against people who may either be political rivals or who might be potential candidates. What are the safeguards to ensure that this doesn't happen?
Salman Khurshid: See, false cases happen even now. That's a worrying thing about our system. I would imagine that our system is robust enough at the level of trial courts to be able to distinguish between a case that is false and a case that is being brought for a variety of extraneous reasons. We have to ultimately rely upon the good sense and wisdom of a trial judge who frames the charges. There are many, many cases where acquittals take place because the charges framed were not based on facts, or that there was interference, or there was lack of evidence during the trial. There are a whole lot of things that have to be examined. I would imagine that the consultations will throw up many points of view before we can take a final call.
Sreenivasan Jain: As your proposal stands at the moment, MPs or MLAs would get instantly disqualified if charges were to be framed against them.
Salman Khurshid: Absolutely. At the moment they have a period of 3 months to appeal and stay on. That will not be available if the structure of the amendments we have suggested goes through. Convicted members will be immediately excluded from Parliament.
Sreenivasan Jain: We did an analysis of how your proposal would impact the current Parliament and found that almost 35 MPs could be debarred if it were to come into force. A number of sections covering a fairly wide canvas are listed as heinous crime. Apart from things like dacoity, murder and so on, you have also listed sections pertaining to creating enmity between communities. A number of senior leaders, particularly of the BJP, have charges framed against them in those cases, including people like LK Advani, MM Joshi and so on. All of these gentlemen could be debarred.
Salman Khurshid: The logic of what is agreed upon by all political parties and by Parliament will obviously have to apply to people irrespective of their political party, their background, their stature or their history. If they are charged, and charges have been framed, then they will have to wait.
Sreenivasan Jain: But do you feel that section 153 (A), which pertains to creating enmity between communities, is a heinous crime? That it should be included as one of the sections?
Salman Khurshid: At present it is included in the proposal that will go for consultation. We have to wait and see what the reactions and responses of people are. Sometimes something that people consider to be very serious maybe prone to subjectivity and therefore opinion on it might be extremely divided. That will obviously have to be kept in mind in terms of the Parliament's perception and Parliament's reaction. I can't foreclose on any of the proposed suggestions we're making but it doesn't mean that we have a rigid attitude and that it's all or nothing. Consultations must be done with an open mind.
Sreenivasan Jain: Last question on this, are you convinced this is going to go through? It is a very controversial area.
Salman Khurshid: It is very difficult to talk about. We have to be convinced. It must go through. And that's what we have to do. It is like many other wholesome legislations that haven't yet gone through. But we're determined, we're committed and we must continue pushing.
Sreenivasan Jain: Electoral reform encompasses a wide range of areas including black money in elections, internal democracy and so on. What is the Government's strategy to tackle those areas, given that no political party, including the Congress can claim that it isn't itself indulging in some of those practices which lead to black money in elections, lack of financial transparency and so on? How serious are you in tackling those areas as well?
Salman Khurshid: I'm no expert in black money, and frankly there are lots of experts floating around on the topic in the country today, so you can ask them.
Sreenivasan Jain: No, I'm talking specifically about elections because that's an area where you have experience as well?
Salman Khurshid: I think the question is whether elections are influenced by black money because there is black money or if elections are something that precipitates the creation of black money. I think one needs to have experts examine this very carefully. You should know what you are fighting in order to ensure that you have the instruments to fight it. With that caveat, let's say that black money, unaccounted money, does play a role in elections and that therefore we have to contain it. We have to contain the very role of money in elections because money can distort an obvious preference that you can get in a democratic election.
Sreenivasan Jain: But do you believe that greater financial transparency by political parties of their own finances is a step in that direction?
Salman Khurshid: Absolutely, and we're moving towards that. When Dr. Manmohan Singh was not Prime Minister, we had him in a committee in our party. We tried to rationalize and put in some transparency in our party and in party funding. I don't know whether a website account of earnings etc. is made available by political parties in this country today...
Sreenivasan Jain: It is now mandatory for all political parties. Their IT returns are filed and you can access those returns under RTI. But when the activists appealed to the RTI Commissioner to make those accounts public, all political parties, including the Congress, opposed it. Your party said that this is a mala fide intent, that the person/activist is not serious, and they tried to block it.
Salman Khurshid: Well this is the case of many, many RTI questions. A lot of RTI questions and demands are based on mala fide intent but since we've decided as a government, when we've decided as a Parliament and as a people...
Sreenivasan Jain: But as a party you opposed it.
Salman Khurshid: There are specific cases in which any given party would want to block information that is being sought. An appeal procedure determines whether that will be allowed, accepted, or not accepted. Parties have a right to say what is within the area of confidentiality and so should not be disclosed. A party has a right to do that. But whether that will be accepted or not depends on the procedure that is provided in the RTI. You will ultimately get a decision, one way or another, by the Commissioners themselves or going all the way to the courts.
Sreenivasan Jain: What about election expenses? The ceiling was recently raised from 25 lakh to Rs 40 lakh for the Lok Sabha. Do you believe that is sufficient? Or do you think that it needs to be raised further?
Salman Khurshid: If you're asking me in practical terms then I think it needs to be raised further. Let me share with you something that the Chief Election Commissioner said in a meeting that we had with him. I can share it with you as it was something that he said publicly. He said that we've raised the ceiling to Rs 40 lakh but I have found that the actual accounts that were filed in a predominant number of cases showed Rs 9 lakh or Rs10 lakh as expenditure.
Sreenivasan Jain: Yes, 99% of all MPs have said that they've only spent 50% of their allowed limit.
Salman Khurshid: The CEC said that he was hoping therefore to reduce the limit. Now am sure he wasn't serious.
Sreenivasan Jain: You reported your election expense as being Rs 11 lakh. Is that an accurate amount? That wasn't under-reported?
Salman Khurshid: To tell you truthfully, we have a very short election now. You can spend as much money as you want before you actually file your nomination and only a 14 day period is counted. How much money can you spend in 14 days? For somebody it might be Rs 11 lakh or Rs 14 lakh or Rs 19 lakh, but I do know that the situation in an election in rural UP is different from that in an urban election in Tamil Nadu or that in an urban election in Maharashtra or Andhra Pradesh.
Sreenivasan Jain: So your short answer to whether the ceiling should be raised is that you think it should be considered...
Salman Khurshid: I think the ceiling should be practical. It should be raised but we have to look at where we actually send the money. We are unable to send it, for instance, in advertising because if you want to get into electronic media advertising, or into newspaper advertising, the rates are so high that the entire ceiling will go into advertising. It's possible. We can work on a formula that allows for certain kind of expenses to be funded by the state. But it will be very difficult to tabulate and collate the other expensesand say that this is what the state should fund. I think the state funding issue is a romantic idea that has caught the attention of a lot of people who want to push it. I think we should discuss it as carefully and as sincerely as possible.
Sreenivasan Jain: One of the most critical areas of electoral reform is internal democracy within political parties. It is again a notion that a lot of political parties pay lip service to but there is very little action on the ground. Your party included, is seen, at least at the higher levels, to take decisions not through a process of elections and so on, but through consensus, as a fait accompli. Is that ever going to change in the Congress?
Salman Khurshid: It's not a matter of the Congress. I think that every institution in every country, democratic or otherwise, reflects the mood, aspiration and the attitudes of the people. If there is an attitude that encourages consensus and adulation and a follow the leader attitude, then what is wrong? If you decide in a particular election that somebody doesn't want to contest against particular candidates, it's happened in Arunachal amongst other states, where people get elected election after election unopposed because nobody stands against them or contests against them. How can you say that this is not democratic? If you have proof that this is being done by oppression, by threats, by coercion, then I can understand that one can say it's not democratic. But if people willingly want that one person should lead them, and nobody is willing to contest against them, then how can you say it's undemocratic?
Sreenivasan Jain: Let's be realistic. It's never that simple. It's not just a question of an open field.
Salman Khurshid: It's happened in the cricket board. It's happened in the BCCI this week. No elections, single persons.
Sreenivasan Jain: The BCCI is not a political party. Political parties are seen as cornerstones of democracy and therefore they are meant to function in democratic ways.
Salman Khurshid: Every institution, including the BCCI, also has to be democratic. The BCCI has had very, very intensely contested elections in the past. People have fought for a single vote and charges have been bandied about alleging people being influenced and so on. Why does everyone suddenly say that this is no time to bicker and fight?
Sreenivasan Jain: Are you saying then that we will never see internal elections for the post of the Congress party president?
Salman Khurshid: But we have had elections.
Sreenivasan Jain: Not for years.
Salman Khurshid: I was a candidate for election in UP.
Sreenivasan Jain: I'm talking about the national party.
Salman Khurshid: I was one of her agents against for our present Congress President, Smt. Sonia Gandhi, against somebody who is a great friend of mine and who came from my party, from my state and who I opposed. I opposed him because he stood up against Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and then Mrs. Sonia Gandhi was generous enough to embrace him after the election and give him a very important post.
Sreenivasan Jain: But that was just one exception. Barring that exception where does one ever see elections in the Congress?
Salman Khurshid: I was a supporter of Mr. Pilot. Mr. Pilot challenged an incumbent sitting president and lost. We went and congratulated Mr. Kesri the next day and I then worked for Mr. Kesri. We've had Mrs. Gandhi's election, Mr. Kesri's election, so at least we've had this. Please tell me another party that has even two such cases of nationwide elections where people have put their ballots and decided who their president would be.
Sreenivasan Jain: Is there a case to be made for having internal elections of political parties monitored by the Election Commission? Could that be a reform?
Salman Khurshid: It could be a reform but I think we're moving gradually towards it. We've had former Chief Election Commissioners monitor the Youth Congress elections, where Mr. Rahul Gandhi has thrown everything he has into the idea of internal democracy. Now we're trying to build it up from that level and I'm sure that Mr. Rahul Gandhi has a lot of experiences that he would be very pleased with. He must have some experiences which might have let him down. But he knows that we've moved forward. He would like this to gradually become the part of party culture. This is not something that's new. This is something we've had.
Sreenivasan Jain: No, I am not asking you whether this is going to happen individually with the Congress... Could this now be a part of the proposed legislation towards election reform. Could this become a law to apply to all political parties?
Salman Khurshid: I think we could make a beginning, in terms of accounting, transparency, reporting etc., and gradually move to that stage. I think we have to be guided by the level and the kind of attitudes we have amongst the ordinary cadres of our parties. But who says any stage is the final stage? There is no such thing as perfection. We're moving towards something better than yesterday and have to make sure we're going in the right direction.
Sreenivasan Jain: Thanks very much indeed.