Disposal of electoral disputes

One wonders whether it is lack of urgency or inability in giving due importance to the cases or inadequacy of existing laws that we see such a poor performance of the process of redress of grievances related to election malpractices.

If there was merit in shifting the tribunal under the High Court, the change has brought the number of tribunal benches down from six, to a single bench at present. As for the current Parliament, out of 19 cases that were admitted for hearing, 12 are still to be decided while only 14 days remain of its life; and as per law all the pending cases will cease to be have any locus standi after the dissolution of the Parliament.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

It merits restating that delay in the dispensation of justice affects all the parties to the litigation. In this case one who is falsely accused of malpractice continues to carry the stigma if the case remains undecided while a genuinely aggrieved person is deprived of his due while the wrong doer continues to reap the benefits of the malpractice. Inordinate delays in adjudicating a case only make it possible for evil to triumph.

It is time to take a serious look at the whole gamut of the electoral tribunal system. We feel that this must be regarded as one of the most important points in the electoral reform issue. To start with, the number of benches should be increased and specific time frame must be set for adjudicating a particular case. There is also need to consider whether minor or smaller disputes should be referred to the district judges to reduce pressure on the High Court. Last but not the least, the 1963 provision, giving exemption to MPs from arrest or litigation 14 days before and 14 days after the commencement of the session, must not be applicable to those MPs that are parties in such cases, if not altogether repealed.