It may be mentioned that upon a writ petition filed as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on April 23 last by three lawyers of the Supreme Court asking for vital information from the candidates seeking election to parliament, a High Court bench on May 24 directed the Election Commission (EC) to make it mandatory for the candidates of parliamentary elections to furnish certain vital information to the EC along with their nomination forms. Earlier the High Court bench concerned issued a rule on the EC to explain why it should not be directed to take measures to collect information as mentioned in the writ petition. The EC did not challenge the rule by filing any reply, and the court delivered its verdict after ex-parte hearing of the case.

According to the verdict of the High Court, a candidate seeking election to parliament will have to furnish following information along with his/her nomination form through affidavit: (1) his academic qualification with certificates, (2) whether he is accused in any criminal case, (3) whether there was any past record of criminal case against him and the result thereof, (4) his profession/occupation, (5) his source or sources of income, (6) whether he was member of parliament (MP), if so, the role he played individually or collectively in fulfilling the commitments to the people, (7) statement of assets and liabilities of himself as well as of his dependents, (8) particulars of loan taken from bank / financial institutions personally, jointly or by dependents or loan taken from bank by the company in which he is chairman , managing director or director. In addition, the court directed the EC to hold joint projection meetings and to compel all the candidates in a constituency to stand on a platform to answer the queries of the people. The court also said that the EC would ensure that information it has received from the candidates is passed on to the voters so that they can take the right decision in electing candidates.

Now the question may arise as to why it became necessary for the High Court to issue the above directives to the EC?

First, criminalisation of politics, which started in the early days of independence, has gradually become a hydra-headed monster. Black money and muscle power have continued to reign over general elections. Money plays an important role in securing party nomination, particularly from the major political parties. In the major political parties serious struggles arose for securing nomination and finances played a major role in it. There is allegation that some major parties gave nomination to candidates who donated huge amounts of money to the parties. Many candidates revolted and changed their parties overnight when they failed to secure party nominations. A BNP leader became AL leader and an AL leader became BNP overnight. Disclosure of statement of assets by a candidate himself and his dependents will enable the voters of a constituency to judge the financial integrity of a candidate (particularly of an ex-MP seeking reelection). Many voters may not like to vote for a candidate who has amassed wealth illegally.

Second, as a result of disclosure of criminal records, a candidate with criminal records will no longer be able to hide his hazy past. This is likely to discourage the voters to vote for a candidate with criminal records.

Third, lawmaking is the main responsibility of the MPs. A good lawmaker has to be knowledgeable about the constitution and important laws of the country; he should be conversant with the working of the government; he has to enrich himself with the working and proceedings of parliaments in other countries. Here lies the cause for emphasis on educational qualifications of a candidate.

Fourth, available information suggests that during the British regime and for some considerable period thereafter the political parties used to nominate persons to contest elections from among the ranks of lawyers, litterateurs, insolvent patriots, hereditary landlords and others. But there has been a qualitative change. The main criterion now for nominating a candidate by a political party is his ability to win the election by any means. A candidate without any socially recognised profession/ occupation is not likely to be favoured by the electorate.

Last but not the least, the political parties, particularly the major parties, make a number of commitments in their election manifestoes.. Besides, the party leadership forcefully assures the implementation of various commitments made by their nominees in their respective constituencies, if they are voted to win. But most of the commitments made by them to the people remain unfulfilled even if they win the elections. This happens during every parliamentary election. Henceforth, an ex-MP seeking reelection will have to disclose whether he attended the sessions and sittings of the House to serve the nation in general and the electorate in particular or just saved his seat by attending sittings in the House once or twice during a period of 90 consecutive sittings. He has to satisfy his voters that he fulfilled the commitments made to them during the previous election(s). To sum up, people will judge him by his past performance.

Some people have raised certain points on the aforesaid directives of the High Court. The points include: (1) Was it necessary to issue those directives when the constitution itself prescribed the qualifications and disqualifications for election to parliament? (2) Why has the HC issued those directives to the EC and not to the government? (3) Whether an uneducated person shall be ineligible to contest parliamentary elections? (4) What will be the decision of the EC in the case of a candidate who does not have his own source of income or his income ceiling is not liable to taxation under income tax rules and regulations? (5) Will it be possible for the EC to act in accordance with the directives of the High Court?

Regarding the first point it may be said that clause (1) of article 66 of the constitution has prescribed the qualifications and disqualifications for election to parliament. But the information to be furnished by a candidate for parliamentary elections along with his nomination form as per directives of the High Court is in no way connected with the qualifications or disqualifications for election to parliament. The information is just for the consumption of the voters to judge the merit of a candidate in their constituency.

As for the second point, it may be stated that in order to ensure free, fair and impartial elections, the constitution declares that the EC shall be independent in the exercise of its functions and be subject only to the constitution and any other law. The involvement of the government or of the legislature is necessary when any amendment(s) to the Representation of the People Order, 1972 of Bangladesh is called for. Pursuant to the powers given by the constitution, the EC has approved the format of affidavit in line with the directives of the High Court in which the candidates will submit the required information along with their nomination forms.

Regarding points (3) and (4) it may be restated that relevant information is required for the electorate to judge the merit of a candidate and it has no relationship with the qualifications or disqualifications for election to parliament.

As for the fifth point, it is stated that the constitution has made it mandatory for all executive authorities to assist the EC in the discharge of its functions. According to the constitution, parliamentary elections will be held during the tenure of non-party caretaker government. The constitution provides that the non-party caretaker government shall give to the EC all possible aid and assistance that may be required for holding the general election of members of parliament peacefully, fairly and impartially. Such a congenial atmosphere is an added advantage for the EC to discharge its assigned responsibilities effectively.

We may recall that the Indian Supreme Court's directives of March, 2003, the Election Commission of India made it mandatory for each candidate for parliamentary and assembly elections to furnish certain vital information along with his nomination form. Information to be furnished by the candidates for parliamentary and assembly elections along with their nomination forms include, among others, disclosure of all their criminal records; statements of all assets and liabilities of the candidates themselves and their family members; and the educational qualifications of the candidates. The Supreme Court further directed that the non-disclosure of the required information would be a ground for the rejection of nomination. It may be noted that there was a long legal battle in India to make it mandatory for the candidates of parliamentary and assembly elections to furnish the aforesaid information along with their nomination forms.

To conclude, the government and the political parties in Bangladesh should render all possible cooperation and assistance to the EC to implement the directives of the High Court. Anyway, this is going to be an acid test for the new Chief Election Commissioner.

M. Abdul Latif Mondal is a former Secretary to the government.