Devise plan to deal with candidates filing false info, HC tells poll panel

These were filed by candidates in their nomination papers.

Holding that a greater judicial notice may be necessary for electoral reforms and cleansing the system to rid it of the perceived largescale involvement of black money, the first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy said: “Though limits as to spending may be fixed by the ECI, such limits may not be realistic and it is the bounden duty of the constitutional watchdog to ensure that if limits are prescribed, they are adhered to; or realistic limits are set, and spending by candidates is confined to such limits, with a scrutiny of the accounts being undertaken.” However, lauding the ECI decision on June 16, 2020, to robustly address this challenge to ensure further free, fair and ethical elections in the country, the bench led by Chief Justice Banerjee said: “The ECI must devise a procedure for dealing with complaints of the present kind. Ideally, a notice should be issued to the relevant candidate and his explanation sought. If, however, the explanation is found unsatisfactory, the ECI should pursue the matter with full rigour,” the bench said.

The bench also recorded the press note issued by the ECI which referred to the leading Supreme Court judgments instructing that the voter must have relevant information and that false or incomplete information undermines the rights of voters to be fully informed of their political representatives. It may be noted that the ECI had initially informed the court citing a 1966 circular that it would not institute criminal action in matters relating to false declarations.

However, with the bench pointing out that it seems completely inappropriate that the ECI, exclusively tasked with the job of overseeing Parliamentary and Assembly elections, would turn a blind eye to allegations of false declarations or false affidavits filed before it by a candidate, quickly changed its stand citing the circular issued by it in 2020 that it would “take cognizance of complaints, and refer such matters to the relevant investigating authorities on a case-to-case basis.”