Candidates failing to make public criminal records could face contempt of court action: EC
New Delhi, Nov 11: Candidates failing to put out advertisements listing their criminal records during electioneering could face contempt of court proceedings and those publishing wrong info about their rivals' criminal antecedents could end up paying penalty for indulging in corrupt practices, the Election Commission has said.
Following a Supreme Court direction, the poll panel had on October 10 made it compulsory for candidates contesting polls to advertise their criminal antecedents in TV channels and newspapers at least three times during electioneering.
The directive comes into force in the assembly elections in five states -- Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Mizoram and Telangana -- in November-December.
According to the directive, political parties too will have to publicise criminal records of their candidates.
In a set of 'frequently asked questions' issued for the five poll-bound states, the commission has made it clear that candidates who do not have criminal record or ongoing cases, need not issue advertisement.
It said the candidates and their parties would have to bear the cost of advertisements and it would form part of their election expenditure.
To the question "what happens if such candidates or such political parties do not publicise in the manner prescribed", the commission said, "Such failure may be a ground for post-election action like election petition or contempt of Hon'ble Supreme Court."
Any candidate or voter of a constituency can file an election petition in the high court of that state challenging the election of the winning candidate.
On the issue of "someone publishing false information about criminal cases of another candidate", the EC said there are already provisions to deal with any case of publication of false statement in relation to a candidate, including Section 171G of the Indian Penal Code which deals with corrupt electoral practices and prescribes a fine for such offences.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Delhi HC Judge Justice Sharma to pass order on recusal plea by Kejriwal at 4.30 pm
New Delhi (PTI): Delhi High Court Judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday said that she would pronounce her verdict at 4.30 pm on pleas by Arvind Kejriwal and others seeking her recusal in the liquor policy case, as she took on record additional pleadings by the AAP chief on his plea.
Justice Sharma said although the pronouncement was scheduled for 2:30 pm, she was "going out of her way" in accepting Kejriwal's rejoinder as a written submission in the matter.
The former chief minister virtually appeared before the judge through video conferencing and urged her to take on record his rejoinder to the written submissions filed by the CBI.
Even as Kejriwal asserted that the registry's refusal to take his rejoinder on record was "miscarriage of justice", Justice Sharma remarked that since he was not being represented by a lawyer, the court went "out of its way" for him when it permitted him to file his additional affidavit last week even after the order on the recusal issue was reserved.
The judge said that as per the registry's rule, a party in-person must take permission from the court to file anything and since the present case was not "extraordinary", the same practice was being followed.
She added that in law, there is no concept of filing a "rejoinder" to the opposite party's written submissions, and she would permit Kejriwal to tender his pleadings as written submissions instead, so that he does not feel that he was not heard.
"You say you have respect for me. I have respect for every litigant. The rule of court will not be changed for anyone so I will treat it as written submissions. I am taking it on record. I am giving the indulgence to Mr Kejriwal," the court stated.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta appeared for the CBI and opposed Kejriwal's request to file rejoinder. Mehta said nowhere in the country were pleadings taken on record after order was reserved a court.
He also said there is no concept of filing rejoinder to a written submission, and the court should do what it would do for any ordinary litigant.
Kejriwal had raised several objections against the judge hearing the CBI's plea against his discharge in the liquor policy case, including that she had earlier denied him relief on his petition challenging his arrest and refused to grant relief on the bail pleas of other accused, including Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha.
He also claimed that Justice Sharma had made "strong and conclusive" findings.
The former Delhi chief minister further alleged a "direct conflict of interest", claiming that the judge's children are empanelled central government lawyers who receive work through the solicitor general, who is appearing in the matter for the CBI.
Besides Kejriwal, the applications for recusal of the judge were also filed by AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak.
Other respondents, including Vijay Nair and Arun Ramchandra Pillai, have also sought her recusal.
Solicitor General urged Justice Sharma to initiate contempt action against Kejriwal and others for seeking her recusal.
Terming concerns by Kejriwal and others as "apprehensions of an immature mind," Mehta told the court it was a matter of "institutional respect" and Justice Sharma should not succumb to pressure as her recusal on "unfounded allegations" would set a bad precedent.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in the Delhi liquor policy case, saying that the CBI's case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
