It is not easy to decide how to realize the ideal of micro-democracy. Some far-reaching decisions are institutional in nature, such as whether a country should adopt a parliamentary system. There are also very nuanced decisions, such as what to base electoral districts on. How to regulate election speeches, etc. Laws of Democracy India
Laws of India
Providing a particular institutional form for the democratic ideal can fundamentally hinder its functioning and challenge the ideal itself. I have. India’s electoral administration system functions fairly, but other aspects of the system are poorly regulated and poorly understood. His two recent judgments have exposed his democratic tenets in India.
The initial decision was made by the Central Intelligence Council (CIC). According to this ruling, political parties are public institutions within the meaning of her 2005 Right to Information Act. According to Section 2(h)(d)(ii) of the Act, a public agency “is substantially funded, directly or indirectly, within appropriate governmental arrangements. . The Commission determined, based on case law to date, that funding a large amount of money does not necessarily mean funding a large portion of the money.
However, this does not mean that all matters are related to government funding. The majority of the funds are lending only. For political parties, funding from state resources includes allotment of vast plots of land in central Delhi, allotment of homes at discounted rent, full exemption from income tax, free advertising on national radio and television, etc. . Full tax exemption on income alone exempts political party income by 30%. Unlike non-profit organizations, there are no conditions to operate under this exemption. This discount is unconditional. The committee took all these aspects into account in deciding whether funding for political parties should be considered funding broadly.
Another aspect of the decision is his discussion of political parties. In modern democracies, voters enter politics through political parties. Political parties should therefore be seen as agents of such coordination. Political parties are even more important in India. After the passage of the Anti-Defects Act, the constitution gained a place among the few constitutions that clearly define political parties. Political parties bind the legislature and may be disqualified under Schedule 10 of the Act. Because of this unparalleled power, it is difficult to argue that Indian political parties are entirely private and governed by their own internal codes of conduct.
Will this regulation limit the actions of political parties? Political parties are regulated in many ways by the country and this regulation is also done by limiting spending and donations
This commission order does not make any distinction. Only sources of income and their uses are disclosed. Bringing political parties within the Freedom of Information Act will undoubtedly bring some degree of scrutiny to intra-party deliberations. Fundamentally reform the electoral law. Measures should be discussed to enable the disclosure of political party funding sources. while respecting the confidentiality of private partners. However, the Commission did not have to heed these concerns. It merely stipulates that political parties are public powers. This means the same as what the law says. In some cases, election regulation is necessary. The principles of fair elections only begin to be violated through campaign spending. formation of a political party. Permissions may not be the best solution to all these problems, and the same may be true of judicial control. But it’s really hard to find fault with the Commission’s internal form of this mandate. This has nothing to do with the world of deregulated political parties. If in danger, he will be exposed in that order
A month later, on 10th July, the Supreme Court asked an entirely different question. Section 8(4) of the People’s Representatives Act 1951 states, “Disqualification under subsection if an individual. Who is a Member of Parliament or a member of the Legislative Assembly of a State who does not expire on the date of conviction? or three months from the date of requesting review of the conviction or judgment during that period, or until such appeal or petition is resolved by a court.
The underlying question is whether the qualifications of a person elected as MLA may differ from those of an incumbent MLA. This question contains a typo. Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution expressly prohibit this discriminatory treatment. The court said: In that case, he cannot continue to be a Member of Parliament or a member of the Legislative Assembly for the same disqualification. It is in line with Congress’ explicit expectation that there should be a single law for incumbents and candidates.
The government side has eloquently argued that it would not establish her two separate criteria for disqualification. The sole purpose of this provision is to prevent disqualification from being applied to applicants. But this indirect method leads to the same goal and even more important. It also expressly falls under Articles 101 and 190 of the Constitution. Seats become vacant when a member is disqualified for any reason. Empty seat prevention may be unconstitutional
Indian Democracy Law
Are there no other remedies for offending members? Disqualification does not apply if a member is subject to a criminal injunction. In this case, the person can continue to be a member. However, there is no appeal on the merits. The only exception to such broad provisions is that you can only appeal against decisions made against you without affecting the factual content. This judicial immunity cannot be treated as an arbitrary order or an order to extend the sentence. Rather, it is a matter of form and deferment of the decision itself. Indian Democracy Law
The nature and responsibility of this review is related to the legislative process. This applies regardless of whether the candidate is scheduled to be elected to the legislature or is an incumbent Member of Parliament. Existing members cannot be viewed as special beings whose sole job is to make laws that benefit them. He argued that this provision was necessary because it was so narrow that it restricted the ability to legislate and hindered the work of government. If the process is started and the verdict on the conviction is overturned, the whole process is wasted. None of these fundamental arguments affect the fundamental legal question of legislative authority. However, there is no doubt that some inconvenience may arise if violations are proven and there is no order to stop their decisions.The purpose of this democratic law is not to make things easier, to ensure that sensitive individual opinions are expressed in the form of votes, even in difficult situations.