HC challenges RPO clause

The High Court yesterday asked why Section 19 of the Representation of People Order (RPO), which allows the Election Commission to declare uncontested candidates in parliamentary elections winners, should not be declared illegal.
In exercise of Section 19, the EC declared 153 candidates elected uncontested in the January 5 parliamentary elections, without a single vote being cast.
This denied more than half of the country's 9.19 crore voters the right to elect their representatives by exercising their franchise.
With the unprecedented number of lawmakers getting elected uncontested, the 10th parliamentary elections triggered widespread controversy over the acceptability of the polls, held amid a boycott by the then BNP-led 18-party opposition alliance.
The HC bench of Justice Mirza Hussain Haider and Justice Muhammad Khurshid Alam Sarkar came up with the rule after hearing a writ filed by Jatiya Party leader Khandker Abdus Salam, who had been disqualified from contesting the January 5 election from Gazipur-1 constituency on loan defaulting charges.
In the petition, he claimed that the RPO provision is conflicting with a number of sections of the constitution, including sections 7, 11 and 65.
Section 7 of the constitution makes the people of the republic the sole source of all powers while Section 11 says, "The Republic shall be a democracy ... in which effective participation by the people through their elected representatives in administration at all levels shall be ensured."
"Parliament shall consist of three hundred members to be elected ... by direct election," states Section 65.
During the hearing yesterday, petitioner's counsel Hassan MS Azim told the court that the declaration of uncontested contenders as MPs violates the constitution as they were not directly voted by the people.
The chief election commissioner, the secretary to the EC, the cabinet secretary and the law secretary have been made respondents to the rule. The HC asked them to explain in 10 days why Section 19 of the RPO should not be declared unconstitutional.
The petitioner's counsel also argued that the RPO should include a 'no' vote provision so that voters can express their rejection to a lone candidate, if no other contestant is available.