Commentary/ Rajiv Shukla

There are too many tainted people in too many tainted parties who will move heaven, earth and Parliament to shoot down Gill's directive

But naturally, Chief Election Commissioner Manohar Singh Gill has a bee in his pagdi for politicians. But naturally, he is an arrogant man, who does not know where his power stops.

But naturally, he had no authority to decide that Indian politics can do without criminals -- come on yaar, he is only the CEC, not Parliament!

Er, before Gill-fans get around to lynching me, this is not what I feel. I was just quoting some of our esteemed politicians about the Election Commission's decision to bar criminals from contesting elections.

As for me, I am grateful to the good Sardar for what he did -- half the troubles of Indian polity would have been over if one of Gill's predecessors had adopted his stand. His critics say the EC is not empowered to issue such directives, that it has to be approved by Parliament. Frankly, I don't know about that. Neither do I want to get into the legal aspects of the decision. But what I know is that the man has taken a very daring step and must be supported.

Today, with mafia members walking into politics as cool as they pleased -- it is completely beyond me why people vote them to power -- we desperately need a law to strengthen the EC's voice. I think this is that law. During the special session of Parliament, almost all the parties had condemned criminalisation of politics. More condemnation will not serve any purpose -- our parliamentarians need to act.

But I have my doubts. I don't think the decision will be passed unanimously -- nay, I am sure it won't be. There are too many tainted people in too many tainted parties who would move heaven, earth and Parliament to shoot it down.

Let that be. Let's move on under the assumption that Gill's directive will stand. In that case, both the EC and the law-makers must be careful of one thing: that the directive is not used for political vindictiveness. Any man in power can get cases registered against his political rivals. True, Gill's directive says that only those who have been convicted will be debarred -- but if you have enough power, cases can be registered so that lower courts get carried away.

There are a proliferation of incidents where politicians have used the police to settle accounts. In Uttar Pradesh, for instance, an attempt is being made to implicate former chief minister Kalyan Singh in the Brahm Dutt Diwedi assassination case. The idea, of course, is to prevent Singh from ascending to power again on September 21. Singh's opponents, along with certain Central Bureau of Investigation officials, are now working overtime to chargesheet him before the D-day. Fortunately, senior CBI officers in Delhi have been informed of these designs, and are keeping an eye on the investigating team.

I cited the example to show that while taking steps against criminalisation of politics, we should also ensure that injustice is not done to anyone. A single decision can ruin somebody's career. Therefore, instead of placing a blanket directive, I think we should start with debarring 'famous' criminal-politicians. Also, the ban should be imposed only on those who have been convicted by no less than a district or high court judge.

I hope our MPs who have been questioning Gill's authority would, instead, take the initiative and get the decision endorsed -- or whatever they had to do -- by Parliament. That would be really something.

Tell us what you think of this column