Sir, I thank you for this opportunity. I thank my fellow Members for giving me this opportunity. I thank my Party, the Chairman of my Party, the National General Secretary, for giving me this opportunity. This opportunity is not the discussion of one more Bill. Please try to understand that today we are dealing rather innocuously with the amendment of a Bill which actually seeks to touch, to shake the very foundations of our democracy. Our democracy rests on free and fair election and today we are discussing the key component, the structure and the mechanics of that election under the guise of a simple law. Why do we need to bother about Indian election? Why do we need to? I will give just a few examples and statistics. We claim to be the mother of democracy. Maybe, we can expand on this some other time. But we have the largest electorate in the world — 92 crore at the last count. We have the largest functioning democracy. We have four million EVMs. The management of four million EVMs crisscrossing the country calls for supreme efforts. Sir, I have had the honour of conducting 1998 and 1999 parliamentary elections as Chief Electoral Officer. I know the extreme difficulties under which officers function. The same officers, the same personnel, who may be slovenly in their daily work, rise to new heights because the surge of national duty overtakes them. It is time to salute their efforts. It is not a question of whether they went through an election process or not. Sir, for national election, we have 20 lakh policemen drafted from here and there and posted outside of their houses. We have three lakh paramilitary personnel. I am just mentioning the statistics. I had 78,000 polling stations and I know what it was. We must salute the machinery that was created by the first founder, Mr. Sukumar Sen, who was drafted from Chief Secretary of West Bengal to become the first Election Commissioner. He laid down the path so that India’s democracy may continue uninterrupted. Now, having said that, I would recommend to friends on both the sides that they read some of the information with pride the amount of elections and the amount of troubles we have gone through. I remember in 1999 elections during the period of Atal Bihariji, there were floods in West Bengal and my Chief Election Commissioner asked me, “तुम कर पाओगे?” I said, यह floods तो बंगाल मेंहोता रहता है। We held elections on boats. That is where people went and voted. We have to go through this. Now, I come to the new Bill and why do we stand to oppose? First thing we need to note in the new Bill is that the status of CEC and ECs is being deliberately lowered from that of a Judge to that of a Cabinet Secretary. सर, इसमेंक्या है, मैंबताना चाहता हूं। It is level 17. Under the Order of Reference, a Supreme Court Judge is at number 9 in the Warrant of Precedence; and Election Commissioner was also there. Now, it has been relegated to 9A. ये छोटी-छोटी बातेंलगती हैं, But, Sir, on it depends the parity; on it depends the level at which one can call the other. If the Cabinet Secretary is equal to the Election Commissioner, tomorrow the Cabinet Secretary will not listen to the Election Commissioner and may say, हम बराबर हैं। You see, don’t put danger through innocuous English words into the Act. Who can summon whom? So, there is a deliberate demeaning of the position of the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners; it is being done deliberately under the guise of a few words. Secondly, the appointment really boils down to that of PM and his Minister. यह 3:2:1, 2:2:1 खेलकर क्या फायदा है। आप फाइल पर ही बैठकर देदीिजए। Why are we going through a charade? I would submit that after 71 years of conducting elections, God and Parliament have given us an opportunity to rethink. This is not the time to say that Mr. Navin Chawla was this and ‘B’ was this or Mr. Sunil Arora was this. This is not the time to discuss. We have had good and bad on both the sides. Mr. Quraishi’s book is of immense importance. Now, why I find this Bill so dangerous, let me explain. In Clause 6, it is given that a Search Committee will be headed by the Cabinet Secretary. Fair enough! A Search Committee, ठीक है, in all good spirit. Then, in Clause 7, they say that after the Search Committee has given names, it would be decided by a Selection Committee consisting of the Prime Minister, his own Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The results are known. Why go through this? The Supreme Court’s Order gave a strong hint that the Chief Justice of India is, perhaps, willing to join a body and bring in a certain degree of legitimacy, sacrosanctity and fairness. That order, that innuendo has been refused. Now, it doesn’t matter who the Leader of the Opposition is at that point of time. I would submit that we have two leaders of the Opposition. दोनों को दे दीिजए। At least, there would be some amount of intelligent discourse before he can have a run-through. The more dangerous Clause is Clause 8. After all this election, and the Search Committee and all that, Clause 8 says that any person can be appointed as Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioner. Now, what a dangerous precedent you are opening! This is a job where I have mentioned about some of the dimensions, where I have said that we have ten lakh polling stations. It is an administrative job and we know what administration is in this. I have also mentioned the degree of fairness that overcomes. Even Tiwariji also mentioned about it िक जब कतर्व्य आ जातेहैं, तब things become different. We are not clerks and officers at that point of time. Having said that, we would insist that you choose the best. There is a sub-Clause here saying who can be shortlisted – Secretary to the Government of India, somebody who has held the post. I would submit that the Secretary to the Government of India is determined by the pay scale. सीधी बात! And tomorrow Chairman of a co-operative society, who has been given that scale and has conducted elections, would fit into the Bill. Do you think that a huge machinery in every village, in every tehsil, in every block, in every sub division, in every taluk, in every district of India, he would be able to run the elections? You are leaving gaping holes and I would submit that it is being done deliberately. Again, I repeat, in Clause 10, the downgrading of the rank takes place. This downgrading is not a question of what shoulder ranks we have. That’s what is in Armed Forces. This downgrading is on the power to instruct during elections िक आपको यह करना ही है। That power is getting diluted by diluting the rank and this is extremely dangerous. I would submit that Clause 8 is very, very dangerous. I will read out to you. The Selection Committee of the Prime Minister may also consider any other person. Modiji, later. You are eating into my time. Okay. So, if you have brought in an Amendment, we shall take a due look at it. Now, taking it in Clause 10, I have mentioned Clause 10 and I shall wait for the Amendment to see what comes up. Now, coming to the Constitution, this is a thing that reflects on Article 324 of the Constitution which gives, after all the debate that has been held, the power of conducting the elections upon this Election Commission. And, it also makes a subtle difference. It is where I plead to my fellow legislators to have a look at this. It makes a difference between the CEC and the EC where the removal is concerned. In other words, an Election Commissioner can be removed, practically, at will, without protection. Now, you may say िक आप यह थ्योिरिटकल बात क्यों कर रहेहैं? मैंबता रहा हूं िक यह थ्योिरिटकल बात क्यों कर रहा हूं। This is practical. Do you remember the episode of Shri Ashok Lavasa when Shri Sunil Arora was the Chief Election Commissioner and was issuing orders that Shri Ashok Lavasa as member refused or had doubts. Shri Ashok Lavasa was going in for conscientious objection. We all know about it. The goings on within the Election Commission is secret and that is what it should be. But, we know from certain acts that Shri Ashok Lavasa was not on the same page with the CEC at that time; when the CEC, at that time, has set new standards that Shri Naveen Chawla never raised, could have never said. That is CEC. We have enough material to talk about it. Now, what happened is that the removal here is equated to Supreme Court Judge, that is impeachment, which is very difficult. But, the ECs remain unprotected and I thought that this Government would have the largeness of heart and the depth of vision to include this protection to them because an Election Commission means three persons and not only one who is in the better books of the Government. When Shri Ashok Lavasa raised these conscientious questions, he was promoted, if I may use the words, he was kicked upstairs. He was just removed. His family was raided; his son was raided and his wife was called in for questions. My humble submission is that if this gentleman had certain, you know what I mean, then why did you make him or did you make him, after knowing all these and keeping this information in a pocket िक बाद मेंइस्तेमाल करेंगे, आगेकभी गड़बड़़ करे? Now, this is not playing fair. I now come to the judgement that has also been mentioned in great detail but this judgement is very, very pointed. It points out to whatever I mentioned about the Election Commissioner being at the mercy of the CEC. It refers to various steps taken to amend the present electoral law and then, uses a word, the Supreme Court, “It becomes imperative to shield the Election Commissioners and to insulate them from Executive interference.” A word like this being mentioned by the Supreme Court is indication enough that we should be more judicious with the post. Now, coming to the 1991 Act, that it seeks to replace, the 1991 Act, actually, gives them that status that this Act is taking away. So, in a way, the 1991 Act was good enough. The 1991 Act was concentrated mainly on salaries. This one does on the demeaning of status. My humble submission to all the Members. Sir, I need those extra seconds. My only,Please pause it. Sir, let me carry on. अगर आपके पास कु छ है, तो पहलेबताना था, not when I am debating. Do not destroy all institutions. सर, pause कीिजए। : I am reading it from that. I am reading from that. I am reading it from that. Sir, let me continue. Sir, may I continue?. थोड़ा बहुत टाइम भी देिखए My submission was, the hon. Member had mentioned, Mr. Tiwari had mentioned about Mr. Navin Chawla, the Secretary of a very powerful person being made the CEC. I referred to the Secretary of the current Prime Minister being made to hold the most neutral post in the Constitution of India after the Election Commission and that is the CAG. Do not destroy every institution. The man who was his right hand is today the CAG and we don’t get any reports. थोड़ी बहुत दो-चार िरपोट�भी आ गईं, पर अब बंद कर दी गई हैं। Not only this, when I talk of the destruction of institutions, I go before him when we had a hero CAG, none of whose presumptive losses could be proved. We have had a hero who got two to three crores from the BCCI because of whatever. He was followed. Sir, I am talking of the destruction of an institution. He was followed by a CAG who was charge-sheeted, who was brought into a CBI chargesheet. A CAG being brought … The destruction of institution, look at the way they are destroying institution … I look upon the UPSC. … सर, मुझेकहनेदीिजए। I talk about the destruction or the demeaning of the UPSC where you have got a.. Sir, it is on the subject, the wider scope. The misuse of ED and the CBI for absolutely… Okay, Sir. I will now come to the last point in this regard where I would say that the Act had spoken about a fixed tenure. This one also speaks about a fixed tenure; it brings it back at 65. Sir, when I mentioned about the destruction of institutions, all I meant is that among the three constitutional institutions–the UPSC, the CAG and the Election Commission–they are suffering through the same fate. I just wanted to draw the attention of the Ministry and provide empirical proof to prove that they are being hollowed out. Do not touch the Election Commission. CAG on a State, we can tolerate, but the Election Commission will determine the fate of democracy that is coming up. We are all going to be a part of its thinking process. There is a leadership that is called for, a huge number of members from the officers and staff of the Government and Para Government offices come up and, when they see somebody they cannot respect; I have been there again and again, अगर इज्जत नहीं देपाए, तो कु छ नहीं बनेगा। आप िजस मज� को अपॉइंट कीिजए। Sir, this may lead to what we call legalization of rigging. We have already found the corrosion, the erosion of the office where EVM is a suspect, VVPATs are not stamped, VVPATs are shown to you for a few jhanki darshan and then it goes into the pot, it does not validate my vote, where you see electoral bonds take over. There have been many, many things in the functioning of the Election Commission that would warrant a fuller discussion. But today, we concentrate only on the appointment and the consequential disappointment, that this side of the House has, to the process by which the entire foundation of fairness is sought to be shaken. Sir, I would still submit that with all these operational faults, the Election Commission is still managing. I would submit that please let it function, please let the army of election personnel function, let them not feel that they are led by an obviously political boss for obvious reasons. Do not destroy this provision. And withdraw those Sections that militate against fairness that actually embed unfairness into the system. Do not legalize rigging. Thank you.
