Various Amendments of Representation of Peoples Acts

The Representation of Peoples Acts have been amended for several times, often witnessing a progressive improvement in the election process and sometimes reflecting the tussle between the executive and judiciary. The notable changes made in various amendments are as follows:

1956 Amendment

In the 1956 amendment, it was made sure that if a person, who is elected before the 1956 amendment, failed to lodge a return of election expenses, will not disqualify on this ground. The idea was to give safety to those who got elected before the enactment of the act because the retrospective disclosure of such expenses would only irreparably open a Pandora’s Box. Similarly, if a person who has been disqualified on account of illegal practice or corrupt practice before enactment of this act would also remain safe.

1966 Amendment

The original act had provisions of Election Tribunals for hearing election petitions. In 1962, after the third general election, the Election Commission had in its report recommended the abolition of election tribunals and suggested that the high court should hear the election petitions. Thus, via the 1966 amendment of the act, the Election Tribunals were abolished and election petitions were transferred to the High Courts, whose decisions could be challenged in Supreme Court. At present, only the disputes related to election of President and Vice-President are directly heard by the Supreme Court.

1988 Amendment

Two notable changes made in the 1988 act were related to adjournment of poll or countermanding of elections on ground of booth capturing and Voting Machines.

1996 Amendment

The important changes made in the 1996 amendment of the 1950 and 1951 acts were as follows:

• Addition of offences of insulating the national flag, and constitution of India
• Addition of offence of preventing the singing of national anthem of India.
• Power of election commission to nominate a government official as Observer to watch conduct of elections in a constituency or several constituencies. The Observer was given power to direct the returning officer to stop the counting of votes at any time before the declaration of the result or not to declare the result if in the opinion of the Observer booth capturing has taken place at a large number of polling stations.
• Once the Observer directs the returning officer to do so, he shall submit a report to the election commission.

This amendment made provisions that the names of the candidates appear on the ballot paper in alphabetical order so that voter can easily identify him or her.

Amendment of 2002

Via this amendment, a new section 33A (Right to Information) was inserted in the 1951 act.  This amendment protects the right of voters to know the antecedents of the candidates. Each contesting candidate is now required to provide the information regarding the conviction of offences or accused of any offence if any to the returning officer while filing the nomination, along with an affidavit.

Via this act, the provisions related to the declaration of assets and liabilities were also included. It also made provisions for penalty for filing false affidavits.

Amendment of 2008

Via this amendment, the exit polls and publishing the results of exit polls prior to strat and completion of all phases of polls was banned. This amendment put more restrictions on government officials in election duty.

Amendment of 2010

The Representation of People’s (Amendment) Act 2010 makes provision for voting rights to non-resident Indians. It provides that every citizen of India whose name is not included in the electoral roll and who has not acquired the citizenship of any other country and who is absenting from his place of ordinary residence in India owing to his conditions such as employment, education, shall be entitled to have his name registered in the electoral roll in the constituency in which his place of residence is mentioned in his passport. Prior to this amendment, the NRIs were barred under Section 19 of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1950, if they remained outside India for six months for whatever reasons.

The act does not give right to context elections to NRIs. It also does not give right to vote in absentia. NRIs are required to be physically present in their respective constituencies at the time of elections. However it is another matter that this does not offer a practical solution to the manner of affecting the voting rights of NRIs.

2013 Amendment

In July 2013, Supreme Court had ruled that a person, who is in jail or in police custody, cannot contest elections to legislative bodies. The RPA, 1951 states that any contestant to an election to legislative bodies has to be an “elector”, i.e., his name should be on the electoral roll and he is not subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 16 of the Representation of People Act, 1950. Among other things, that section disqualifies anyone from being on the electoral roll if he is disqualified from voting under the provisions of any law relating to corrupt practices and other offences in relation to elections. Another provision in the RPA, 1951 says that anyone in prison or on the lawful custody of the police (other than preventive detention) is not entitled to vote.

The Supreme Court concluded that a person in jail or police custody is not entitled to vote, and therefore, is not an elector, and thus, cannot contest elections.

To obviate this judgement, the UPA Government hurriedly passed the Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2013, which brought two key changes:

Firstly , even if a person is prohibited from voting due to being in police custody or in jail, as long as his name is entered on the electoral roll he shall not cease to be an elector. This implies that he can file nomination for an election.

Secondly, definition of “disqualified” in the Act has been amended. Prior to this act, the definition of disqualified means disqualified for either being chosen as or being a MP or MLA. The amendment adds a ground to the definition that the disqualification has to be due to conviction for certain specified offences and can be on no other ground. Conviction for only these certain offences would result in the person’s name being removed from the electoral roll and he would cease to be an elector.