बसपा अध्यक्ष मायावती तथा राज्य सभा सांसद अखिलेश दास द्वारा लगाए गए आरोप-प्रत्यारोप अब चुनाव आयोग तक पहुँच गए हैं. सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता डॉ नूतन ठाकुर ने आज मुख्य निर्वाचन आयुक्त और दो अन्य निर्वाचन आयुक्तों को इस सम्बन्ध में ईमेल द्वारा शिकायत भेज कर इन आरोपों की जांच करने और इन पर तदनुसार कठोर विधिक कार्यवाही करने हेतु निवेदन किया है. उन्होंने कहा कि आईएनसी बनाम इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ सोशल वेलफेयर सहित तमाम निर्णयों में सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने स्पष्ट कर दिया है कि आयोग को किसी राजनैतिक दल द्वारा देश के स्थापित कानूनों को तोड़ने की दशा में उसे अपंजीकृत करने का अधिकार और दायित्व है, जैसा इस मामले में बसपा पर श्री दास द्वारा आरोपित किया गया है.
उन्होंने यह भी कहा है कि ये आरोप-प्रत्यारोप आईपीसी की धारा 171ई (रिश्वत- एक साल की सजा) और 171एफ (निर्वाचन में असम्यक असर डालना- एक साल की सजा) के तहत अपराध हैं. अतः उन्होंने इस मामले में मायावती तथा श्री दास से पूछताछ कर बसपा और इन दोनों को दोषी पाए जाने की स्थिति तक उनके खिलाफ आपराधिक तथा निर्वाचन विधि में कार्यवाही की मांग की है. नूतन ठाकुर ने बसपा की मान्यता खत्म करने और दोनों मायावती व अखिलेश दास के खिलाफ मुकदमा चलाने का अनुरोध किया है.
Complaint sent by email to the CEC and 2 other ECs–
The Chief Election Commissioner
and other Election Commissioners,
Election Commission of India,
Subject- Immediate enquiry into extremely serious allegations of corrupt practices/bribery by Ms Mayawati and Mr Akhilesh Das
1. That I Dr Nutan Thakur, a social activist working in the field of transparency and accountability in governance, present the various news articles as regards the allegations and counter-allegations by Ms Mayawati, President of Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and Mr Akhilesh Das, Member of Parliament (MP) in Rajya Sabha as regards corrupt practices being undertaken by them. A few news articles are being attached as Annexure No 1
2. That as per the reliable media reports, on 05/11/2014 (Wednesday) Ms Mayawati said in a Press Conference at BSP Headquarters in Lucknow that Mr Das offered her Rs 100 crores for renominating him to the Upper House. She said-“Akhilesh Das had talked to me in Delhi and had offered money for repeating him as BSP candidate to the Rajya Sabha. Das had said that he was ready to give Rs 50 crores to Rs 100 crores for getting Rajya Sabha ticket saying that as the BSP is out of power now, I would need funds to run the party. Ms Mayawati said she told Mr Das that she would not make him RS candidate even if he offered Rs 200
3. That Mr Das countered Ms Mayawati’s allegations saying he had not offered any money and it was the BSP leadership that extorted money from candidates contesting assembly and parliamentary elections. He said-‘It’s the BSP culture to force MPs, MLAs and office-bearers to cough up funds for the party. It is upto you people to understand who offered and demanded money. She (Mayawati) is famous in America too as far as money is concerned.” He alleged that “in BSP, Rs 50 lakh was being taken from Dalits and Rs 1 crores from prospective candidates who wanted to contest 2017 Assembly polls.” He also alleged that the party had also taken Rs 10 lakhs from office bearers, legislators and MPs during Haryana and Maharastra Assembly elections.
4. That these allegations and counter allegations can be easily watched as various You-tube videos on links like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcWAYfudvBY , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZP74-hivG0 , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb1BTywkPmA and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=783BkH8Qzdg.
5. That in each of these videos, both Ms Mayawati and Mr Das are seen making such serious allegations of corruption and bribery.
6. That coming to the legal aspects of the issue, section 29A of the Representation of People’s Act 1951 related with registration with the Election Commission of associations and bodies as political parties says among other things-“(5) The application under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of the memorandum or rules and regulations of the association or body, by whatever name called, and such memorandum or rules and regulations shall contain a specific provision that the association or body shall bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, and to the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy, and would uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India”, “(7) After considering all the particulars as aforesaid in its possession and any other necessary and relevant factors and after giving the representatives of the association or body reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Commission shall decide either to register the association or body as a political party for the purposes of this Part, or not so to register it; and the Commission shall communicate its decision to the association or body: Provided that no association or body shall be registered as a political party under this sub—section unless the memorandum or rules and regulations of such association or body conform to the provisions of sub—section (5)” and “(8) The decision of the Commission shall be final.”
7. That as per section 29B of the RP Act 1951, Subject to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), every political party may accept any amount of contribution voluntarily offered to it by any person or company other than a Government company
8. That as per section 29C of RP Act 1951, the treasurer of a political party or any other person authorised by the political party in this behalf shall, in each financial year, prepare a report in respect of the following, namely:—(a) the contribution in excess of twenty thousand rupees received by such political party from any person in that financial year;(b) the contribution in excess of twenty thousand rupees received by such political party from companies other than Government companies in that financial year
9. That section 171B in the Indian Penal Code says-“(1) Whoever— (i) gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right; or (ii) accepts either for himself or for any other person any gratification as a reward for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce any other person to exercise any such right; commits the offence of bribery: Provided that a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action shall not be an offence under this section. (2) A person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or attempts to procure, a gratification shall be deemed to give a gratification. (3) A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to accept a gratification, and a person who accepts a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not done, shall be deemed to have accepted the gratification as a reward.
10. That section 171C says-“ Undue influence at elections.— (1) Whoever voluntarily interferes or attempts to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right commits the offence of undue influence at an election. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), whoever— (a) threatens any candidate or voter, or any person in whom a candidate or voter is interested, with injury of any kind, or (b) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or voter to believe that he or any person in whom he is interested will become or will be rendered an object of Divine displeasure or of spiritual censure, shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of such candidate or voter, within the meaning of sub-section (1).
11. That section 171E is Punishment for bribery.—Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both: Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only
12. That section 171F is Punishment for undue influence or personation at an election.—Whoever commits the offence of undue influence or personation at an election shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both.
13. That from the above legal positions, it is clear that-
14. (a) The Election Commission of India (Commission, for short) has the final right and duty to get a political party registered under section 29A of RP Act
15. (b) Every political party needs to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established
16. That in Kerala Vyapari Vavasayi Ekopana … vs State Of Kerala And Ors (AIR 2000 Ker 389) the Hon’ble Kerala High Court through its order dated 01/06/2000 had said-“Once an association or body of individual citizens thus get a registration under the Act, holding out that the body shall bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India and to the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy and would uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, obviously, that association or body is bound to respect the law declared by the Supreme Court and the verdict of the apex Court…” and that-“The argument of counsel for the Election Commission that there is only a power in the Election Commission to register and there is no power to de-register has only to be stated to be rejected. It is clear that whenever a power to do something is conferred on a body, there is also conferred on that body the power to undo the same.”
17. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8738 of 1992 had said-“With respect, we cannot understand the said dismissal as laying down any law that the Election Commission has no power to initiate action under Section 29A of the Act in appropriate cases and deregister or withdraw the registration given to a party or association of persons if circumstances are made out justifying such withdrawal. We cannot agree with the stand adopted by the Chief Election Commissioner that he has no power to enquire into such complaints and he could act only under the circumstances he has referred to in his order in that case. The Election Commission can act as sentinel to ensure respect to the Constitution and democracy by the associations or parties registered under the Act.”
18. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian National Congress (I) vs Institute Of Social Welfare & Ors (Appeal (civil) 3320-21 of 2001), where through their order dated on 10/05/2002 they said-“The foremost question that arises in this group of appeals is whether the Election Commission of India under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) has power to de-register or cancel the registration of a political party on the ground that it has called for hartal by force, intimidation or coercion and thereby violated the provisions of the Constitution of India” and that-“We are, therefore, of the view that unless there is express power of review conferred upon the Election Commission, the Commission has no power to entertain or enquire into the complaint for de-registering a political party for having violated the Constitutional provisions. However, there are three exceptions where the Commission can review its order registering a political party. One is where a political party obtained its registration by playing fraud on the Commission, secondly it arises out of sub-section (9) of Section 29A of the Act and thirdly, any like ground where no enquiry is called for on the part of the Election Commission, for example, where the political party concerned is declared unlawful by the Central Government under the provision of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 or any other similar law”
19. That the above orders of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court make it mandatory for the Commission to enquire into serious allegations of corruption alleged against the Bahujan Samaj Party under Ms Mayawati and to take appropriate action, including deregistering the party if the allegations made by Mr Akhilesh Das are found true
20. That on the other hand, the allegations made by Ms Mayawati against Mr Akhilesh Das very apparently fall under sections 171E (Punishment for bribery—imprisonment of one year) and section 171F (Punishment for undue influence- imprisonment of one year) because the contents of the allegations of Ms Mayawati fit exactly in the definition of section 171B and section 171C
21. That both these offences are Non-cognizable and bailable
22. That hence in the light of the above facts, the petitioner prays that the allegations made by Ms Mayawati and Mr Akhilesh Das, as presented in the petition and as narrated in the You-tube video links, be immediately enquired into by the Commission by questioning and/or interrogating both Ms Mayawati and Mr Das and legal actions (both necessary criminal and electoral- as per the Indian Penal Code and the Representation of People’s Act 1951, including de-registration of Bahujan Samaj Party and registration of offences against Ms Mayawati and/or Mr Akhilesh Das) be taken as per the facts obtained through the enquiry undertaken by the Commission
23. That it is kindly prayed that the matter being extremely sensitive and important, the enquiry be undertaken as soon as possible, say within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this petition
Lt No- NT/Complaint/14/14
Dr Nutan Thakur
5/426, Viram Khand,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow