ADR India

The elections for 55 seats of the Rajya sabha were held in two phases on June 14th and June 17th 2010 in 13 states. Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and National Election Watch (NEW) have analysed the affidavits of all the candidates and winners in these 13 states namely Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Orissa, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh.

To Download Detailed Report Click here 

Executive summary for candidates

1. Total number of seats of Rajya Sabha for which elections were held = 55 (covering 13 states). Affidavits analyzed for 55 seats for 13 states.
2. Total number of affidavits analyzed by ADR and NEW =60 (covering 13 states).
3. A total of 16 candidates (i.e.27%) declared in their affidavits that they have pending criminal cases against them.
4. Out of these 16 candidates with pending criminal cases, 8 candidates have declared serious criminal cases pending on them – including that of attempt to murder, wrongful confinement & related to cheating and forgery. Out of these 16 candidates, 15 candidates with pending criminal cases have won the elections.
5. Most parties nominated candidates with pending criminal cases. Of the major parties, INC nominated 3 candidates (i.e.18%) with pending criminal cases out of 17 candidates. BJP nominated 2 out of 11 (i.e. 18%) such candidates, BSP nominated 1 out of 7 (i.e. 14%) such candidates. NCP nominated 2 out of 2 (i.e. 100%) such candidates and DMK nominated 1 out of 3 (33%) such candidates.
6. Amongst candidates with serious pending cases, 1 each from INC, BJP, BSP, SS, TDP and IND candidates have declared that they have pending serious criminal cases against them.
7. Amongst candidates with pending serious criminal cases, Prof Baghel S P Singh (BSP from UP) has declared a case of attempt to murder pending against him. Dr Vijay Mallya (IND from Karnataka) has declared two cases related to FERA act and cheating and dishonesty pending against him. Gundu Sudha Rani (TDP from Andhra Pradesh) has declared pending cases related to promoting enmity between different groups on basis of religion etc. on her. Rashid Masood (SP from UP) and T.M Selvaganapathi (DMK from Tamil Nadu) hae declared 3 pending cases related to Prevention of Corruption Act on them.
8. Most parties preferred nominating candidates with high assets. Out of 60 contesting candidates 49 were crorepatis i.e. 81%. 44 out of 59 (72%) of newly elected Rajya Sabha members are crorepatis.
9. The average asset for the candidates declared in their affidavits is Rs 22 crores. For the winners the average asset is Rs 23 Crores.
10. The highest assets have been declared by Dr. Vijaya Mallya (IND) from Karnataka (Rs 615 Crores). He is followed by Yalamanchili Satyanarayana Chowdary (TDP) from Andhra Pradesh (Rs 189.7 Crores), followed by Kanwar Deep Singh (JMM) from Jharkhand (82.6 Crores).
11. The lowest assets declared were by Anil Dave (BJP, Rs 2.7 lakhs). He is followed by Ram Kripal Yadav (RJD, Rs 27.32 lakhs) and by Shashi Bhushan Behera (BJD, Rs 29.74 lakhs).
12. Five candidates Dheeraj Prasad Sahu (INC, Rs 14.76 crores), Rashid Masood (SP, Rs 5.14 crores), Shashi Bhushan Behera (BJD, Rs 29 lakhs), T.M Selvaganapathi (DMK, Rs 4.6 crores) and K.V. Ramalingam (DMK, Rs 1.6 crores) did not declare their PAN cards in their affidavits.
13. 3 candidates have declared that they own no immovable assets (including property either commercial or residential). Among them are: Dr Vijay Mallya (IND, total assets Rs 615 Crores), Jairam Ramesh (INC, total assets Rs 61 lakhs) and Anil Dave (BJP, total assets Rs 2.7 lakhs).
14. The representation of women candidates was very low. Only 4 candidates were women and all of these have won.
 

The Sixth National Conference on electoral and political reforms, organized by ADR and NEW was held on April 10 & 11 2010 at Samanvay Bhavan, Bhopal. In addition to sharing the Lok Sabha 2009 Election Watch experience it had also covered special sessions on “Political party reforms”, “The media and the paid news in elections” and “Election watch in the local elections”.

The delegates to the conference comprised of civil society organizations, eminent citizens, media, senior bureaucrats and Police officials, leaders from the corporate sector and the political parties. The National Election Watch groups from each state were present and shared their experience. Based on year long consultations in their respective states by the election watch groups the following resolutions were unanimously passed at the conference:

Resolutions passed at Bhopal Conference

1. People with criminal records should not be allowed to contest elections. In particular, those with serious charges related to murder, financial fraud, and electoral fraud and so on.
2. The option of “None of the above” should be there on the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs)
3. Political parties need to be regulated. In particular strict rules enacted through law for inner party democracy and financial transparency should be in place. All office bearers and candidates for elections should be selected through a democratic process; preferably by secret ballot for all registered party members.
4. The draft Bill to regulate Political Parties, as given in the 170th Law Commission report should be passed by Parliament
5. The maintenance of accounts by political parties and audit thereof by agencies specified by the Comptroller and Auditor General should be made compulsory.
6. The relevant sections of the Representation of People Act(RPA) pertaining to electoral malpractices need to be amended and stricter penalties imposed
7. Electoral malpractices should be declared criminal offenses carrying a sentence of two years or more and the RPA should be suitably amended for this.
8. Statement of election expenses should be filed by all candidates within a month of elections and defaulters should face penalty, including nor being allowed to take oath until they fulfill this obligation
9. Elected MPs and MLAs should be required to give an annual report to their constituency giving details of their accomplishments for previous year and the plan for the next year.
10. There should be an independent body or commission that takes decisions on salaries and perks of elected representatives. It is a clear conflict of interest now where they fix their own remuneration.
11. The list of polling agents should be made public well in advance of the elections.
12. There should be a mix of official and non official observers during elections, selected by the Election Commission. The same facilities and powers should be given to both categories of observers.
13. The Chief Electoral officer of a state should be from the cadre of another State. The CEO is sometimes apprehensive that after his term is over, he will have to work under the same political authorities over which he exercised powers during elections as CEO. This will avoid that problem.
14. Appointment of the CEC and SEC should be through a multi party system including the leader of the ruling party and the opposition, the Speaker and the Chief Justice.
15. The tradition of the Collector/DM/DCs holding at least three press conferences giving out the election arrangements needs to be followed meticulously. In some places this was not done.
16. All the electoral reforms proposed by the Election Commission and sent to the Prime Minister’s office in 2004 should be taken up at the highest priority.