Not right to force candidates to disclose details on health: EC
Special Correspondent
CHENNAI, June 12, 2018 00:00 IST
Says it is up to the legislature to take a call, given the sensitive nature of the issue
The Election Commission of India on Monday told the Madras High Court that it may not be appropriate for it to make disclosure of health conditions and ailments by all candidates, wanting to contest Parliamentary and Assembly elections, mandatory because it was a sensitive issue involving the right to privacy of individuals.
In a counter-affidavit filed before Justice N. Kirubakaran, who had raised the query in the context of the death of former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa within seven months of her getting elected for the second consecutive term in 2016, the commission stated that it was up to the legislature to make such a disclosure mandatory.
Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) Satyabrata Sahoo had filed the counter-affidavit on behalf of the commission and it read: “The EC is of the view that it may not be the best course of action to invoke powers under Article 324 of the Constitution and issue any guidelines considering the gravity of the subject and implications on privacy.
“In any event, the commission is within its powers to examine the issue and make any recommendations to the government or the Law Commission in this regard, if necessary... In the circumstances, a direction may be issued to the Central or State government to consider the issue and take suitable decision to bring legislative changes to deal with the issue.”
According to Mr. Sahoo, though every voter had a right to be informed and every candidate was obligated to disclose such information as relevant to contesting in elections, “it cannot be stated that any information can be called upon to be disclosed from a candidate without appropriate sanction under law.”
Mandatory disclosures
He pointed out that as per the existing law, the candidates were obliged to disclose their criminal antecedents as required under Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act of 1951 and also the assets held by them and their immediate family members as per the directions issued by the Supreme Court in 2002.
The two requirements were made mandatory to ensure purity of elections. “Though it cannot be stated that the health of a candidate is irrelevant, in view of the natural expectation of a [people’s] representative being able to perform his duties, any such call for disclosure will come in conflict with an individual’s right to privacy,” the CEO said.
He went on to add: “... parameters of health that are to be disclosed such as details of life threatening ailments or commonly found health issues such as diabetes, blood pressure or long-term, short-term illness, psychiatric/psychological conditions or any physical deformity must be intelligibly differentiated and the same requires legislative wisdom.”
After taking the counter-affidavit on file, the judge adjourned the hearing to June 25 after directing the petitioner’s counsel M. Purushothaman to submit his reply.
Special Correspondent
CHENNAI, June 12, 2018 00:00 IST
Says it is up to the legislature to take a call, given the sensitive nature of the issue
The Election Commission of India on Monday told the Madras High Court that it may not be appropriate for it to make disclosure of health conditions and ailments by all candidates, wanting to contest Parliamentary and Assembly elections, mandatory because it was a sensitive issue involving the right to privacy of individuals.
In a counter-affidavit filed before Justice N. Kirubakaran, who had raised the query in the context of the death of former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa within seven months of her getting elected for the second consecutive term in 2016, the commission stated that it was up to the legislature to make such a disclosure mandatory.
Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) Satyabrata Sahoo had filed the counter-affidavit on behalf of the commission and it read: “The EC is of the view that it may not be the best course of action to invoke powers under Article 324 of the Constitution and issue any guidelines considering the gravity of the subject and implications on privacy.
“In any event, the commission is within its powers to examine the issue and make any recommendations to the government or the Law Commission in this regard, if necessary... In the circumstances, a direction may be issued to the Central or State government to consider the issue and take suitable decision to bring legislative changes to deal with the issue.”
According to Mr. Sahoo, though every voter had a right to be informed and every candidate was obligated to disclose such information as relevant to contesting in elections, “it cannot be stated that any information can be called upon to be disclosed from a candidate without appropriate sanction under law.”
Mandatory disclosures
He pointed out that as per the existing law, the candidates were obliged to disclose their criminal antecedents as required under Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act of 1951 and also the assets held by them and their immediate family members as per the directions issued by the Supreme Court in 2002.
The two requirements were made mandatory to ensure purity of elections. “Though it cannot be stated that the health of a candidate is irrelevant, in view of the natural expectation of a [people’s] representative being able to perform his duties, any such call for disclosure will come in conflict with an individual’s right to privacy,” the CEO said.
He went on to add: “... parameters of health that are to be disclosed such as details of life threatening ailments or commonly found health issues such as diabetes, blood pressure or long-term, short-term illness, psychiatric/psychological conditions or any physical deformity must be intelligibly differentiated and the same requires legislative wisdom.”
After taking the counter-affidavit on file, the judge adjourned the hearing to June 25 after directing the petitioner’s counsel M. Purushothaman to submit his reply.
No comments:
Post a Comment