Let’s get poll deadlines right

a minimum of a month is required to complete formalities — from the date of nomination to that of counting.

In the above situation the EC, as a matter of precedent and propriety, would and could include in the very same notification the date for the first meeting of the new Parliament. In this it would be following the precedent in UK, where according to May’s Parliamentary Practice, “A Parliament in the sense of a parliamentary period, is a period not exceeding five years which may be regarded as a cycle beginning and ending with a proclamation. Such a proclamation…on the one hand dissolves an existing Parliament, and, on the other, provides for the election and fixes a date for meeting of a new Parliament in the very same proclamation.”

No doubt the situation is different when there is premature dissolution. Since the EC in this case is alerted only after the dissolution, he cannot fix any schedule in advance. The Supreme Court has recognised that in a special situation like Gujarat, where holding a free and fair election is not possible, there may be an inevitable delay. But it has also warned that reasons for deferring elections should normally be related to acts of God and not acts of man. It follows, therefore, that once the assembly has been dissolved, the EC shall take immediate steps to conduct the election.

It is true that the Supreme Court has held, while interpreting Sections 14 and 15 of the RP Act, that fixing the election schedule for the assembly is the exclusive domain of the EC. But the court has also pointed out that when an assembly is dissolved by the governor on the advice of the CM, naturally, the CM or his political party seeks a fresh mandate. The duty of the EC then is to conduct a fresh election and see that a democratically elected government is installed at the earliest.

The argument of parties not being ready for election is not acceptable because every party is expected to be in perpetual readiness for an election. The privilege of CM to dissolve prematurely the assembly cannot be challenged, either on moral or constitutional grounds. The argument for delay on the ground that as general revision of rolls is to take place in January 2004 is also not sound. In any case, up to now, no notification has been issued by the EC. I take it that the parties must already have taken steps to enroll the new voters and they can, in law, continue to do so right up to the last date for making nominations. Thus, there is sufficient time to update the electoral roll and still hold an election within two months.

The law requires about 30 days to complete the election process. Thus a healthy precedent must be established that a new legislature would meet within six to eight weeks of the date of dissolution. Political parties do not own the country. People have a right to have their elected representatives at the earliest.