- News>
- Newspapers
EC to publicise candidates` antecedents: The Hindu
Bangloge, July 16: For the first time in Karnataka, antecedents of the candidates contesting an election will be made known to voters during the election to the K.R. Puram City Municipal Council (CMC) on August 10.
Bangloge, July 16: For the first time in Karnataka, antecedents of the candidates contesting an election will be made known to voters during the election to the K.R. Puram City Municipal Council (CMC) on August 10.
C. Chikkanna, State Election Commissioner, told presspersons that candidates would have to file an affidavit before the Returning Officer mentioning their background, and furnish details of heir assets and liabilities.
With this election, Karnataka becomes the fourth State to implement the Supreme Court's order in this regard. Mr. Chikkanna said the Supreme Court had directed the Election Commission to obtain details on whether the candidate was convicted, acquitted, or discharged of any criminal offence in the past, whether he was an accused in a pending case of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more and in which charges are framed or cognisance is taken by the court of law six months prior to filing nomination, details of assets - immovable, movable, bank balances, of the candidate and his or her spouse and that of dependents; liabilities, if any, particularly with any public financial institution or the Government; and the candidate's educational qualification. Mr. Chikkanna said details furnished by candidates would be notified for the benefit of voters. Objections would also be notified. The copies of affidavits would be made available to candidates.
Obtaining these details itself may not lead to disqualification of candidates. If any information deserved to be processed for disqualification of the candidates, it would be done without affecting the electoral process, Mr. Chikkanna said.
Failure to furnish details in the form of an affidavit sworn before a competent authority would amount to violating the Commission's order.
Such candidates would face rejection of his nomination, Mr. Chikkanna said. Furnishing wrong information or suppression of facts might lead to rejection of his nomination papers.
Although the Supreme Court's order pertained to Parliament and State Legislatures, the State Election Commission was duty-bound to implement this as had been done in Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal, he added.
The Delhi High Court ruled in November 2000 that the past of the candidate should not be kept in the dark during elections.
An all-party meeting held in New Delhi, had disagreed with this and the Centre had filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court had rejected the appeal and made it obligat
New rules
Candidates to declare their assets and liabilities
Poll panel to obtain details of cases against candidates
Contestants to be disqualified for providing wrong information
With this election, Karnataka becomes the fourth State to implement the Supreme Court's order in this regard. Mr. Chikkanna said the Supreme Court had directed the Election Commission to obtain details on whether the candidate was convicted, acquitted, or discharged of any criminal offence in the past, whether he was an accused in a pending case of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more and in which charges are framed or cognisance is taken by the court of law six months prior to filing nomination, details of assets - immovable, movable, bank balances, of the candidate and his or her spouse and that of dependents; liabilities, if any, particularly with any public financial institution or the Government; and the candidate's educational qualification. Mr. Chikkanna said details furnished by candidates would be notified for the benefit of voters. Objections would also be notified. The copies of affidavits would be made available to candidates.
Obtaining these details itself may not lead to disqualification of candidates. If any information deserved to be processed for disqualification of the candidates, it would be done without affecting the electoral process, Mr. Chikkanna said.
Failure to furnish details in the form of an affidavit sworn before a competent authority would amount to violating the Commission's order.
Such candidates would face rejection of his nomination, Mr. Chikkanna said. Furnishing wrong information or suppression of facts might lead to rejection of his nomination papers.
Although the Supreme Court's order pertained to Parliament and State Legislatures, the State Election Commission was duty-bound to implement this as had been done in Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal, he added.
The Delhi High Court ruled in November 2000 that the past of the candidate should not be kept in the dark during elections.
An all-party meeting held in New Delhi, had disagreed with this and the Centre had filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court had rejected the appeal and made it obligat
New rules
Candidates to declare their assets and liabilities
Poll panel to obtain details of cases against candidates
Contestants to be disqualified for providing wrong information