The move comes after the EC could not act even after its "prestige was sullied" by political parties and individuals like AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal
The Election Commission (EC) has sought from the Centre "High Court-like powers" to act against those questioning the poll body's credibility through "unfounded allegations".
The move comes after the EC could not act even after its "prestige was sullied" by political parties and individuals like AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal.
AAP and some other Opposition parties have alleged that Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) were tampered with during the recent Assembly elections as well as Delhi's civic body polls.
The EC has sought a suitable amendment to the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1951 to be able to act.
Kejriwal recently challenged the EC's authority by calling it Dhritarashtra (the blind king in Mahabharata) and said Election Commissioners AK Joti and OP Rawat were close to BJP bigwigs.
The EC chose to remain quiet despite being asked why it was not taking any action. Since the EC is a quasi-judicial authority, it has no power to initiate any contempt proceedings.
The EC's letter to the Law Ministry clearly reflects its sentiment. It says: "After elections, taking advantage of the right to freedom of expression, the leaders of a few political parties openly question the Commission as well as try to shake the belief of the masses in the electoral process of the country by making wild and baseless allegations... without any shred of material, specific and credible evidence."
In its letter dated April 24, the EC has even proposed what all could be inserted in Section 169A in Part-IX (General) of the RP Act to provide the poll body with the power to act in case of any contempt.
In its proposed amendment to the Law Ministry, the EC wants the same jurisdiction/powers and authority in respect of contempt as that of a High Court in case of both civil as well as criminal matters.
The proposed amendment explains civil contempt as wilful disobedience to any instruction, direction, order or opinion passed by the EC or wilful breach of any undertaking given to it.
While criminal contempt has been explained as publication (spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation) of any matter which i) scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of the Commission, and ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any function of the Commission with respect to superintendence, direction and control of elections.
In its letter, the EC has also given examples of the election commissions of countries like the Philippines, Ghana, Liberia and Pakistan that have been provided with direct powers to punish for contempt in their respective legislation, and Australian and Kenyan election commissions that have been provided with powers to punish for their contempt through agencies constituted under election management bodies.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Election Commission")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}