कर्नाटक बार कौंसिल के हाल ही में सम्पादित चुनाव में निर्वाचन अधिकारी और
अन्य लोगो ने निर्वाचन को निष्पक्ष रखने के लिए बार कौंसिल ऑफ़ इंडिया और
निर्वाचन निर्देशों की पालना सुनिश्चित नहीं की ,,इसी मामले में कर्नाटक
बार कौंसिल निर्वाचन ट्रिब्यूनल ने सुनवाई के बाद ,,बार कौंसिल चुनावों के
नतीजे निरस्त करते हुए ,,15 मई के पहले फिर से निर्देशों की पालना करते
हुए चुनाव करवाने के निर्देश जारी किये है ,,राजस्थान बार कौंसिल में
निर्वाचन और वोटो की गिनती प्रक्रिया में बार कौंसिल ऑफ़ राजस्थान
,,निर्वाचन नियम ,,निर्वाचन मार्गनिर्देशनो की पालना सुनिश्चित नहीं हुई है
,यहां पेटियों में फ़टे हुए मत पत्र निकले है ,,तो मत पत्रों पर व्हाइटनर
लगाने की गंभीर घटनाये सामने आयी ,है ,,,मतपत्रों की सुरक्षा पुलिस की
निगरानी में नहीं रखी गयी ,ऐसे के बार कौंसिल ऑफ़ राजस्थान ,,बार कौंसिल ऑफ़
कर्नाटक की मतपत्रों ,,मतपेटियों की प्रक्रिया ,,लापरवाही ,,नाफ़रमानियां एक
जैसी होने से राजस्थान की वोटो की गिनती और चुनाव निरस्त होना चाहिए
,,यहां भी दुबारा चुनाव होना चाहिए ,,,An Election Tribunal has set aside
the Karnataka State Bar Council elections held last month, owing to
several noted irregularities brought to its attention.
An order to this effect was passed by Chairman and former Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court Justice SK Mukherjee, along with former Gujarat High Court judge Justice RD Vyas and former Patna High Court judge Justice Mridula Mishra yesterday, following examination of several complaints made by two Advocate-candidates, HR Durgaprasad and HC Shivaramu.
Arguments were made for the complainants by Advocates Saurabh Agarwal and Komal Mundhra. The Special Committee to the Karnataka Bar Council was represented by Advocate Sreenidhi V.
“The Election of the Karnataka State Bar Council reveals a very sorry state of affairs,” remarks the Tribunal, before detailing the various deficiencies and illegalities that vitiated the Bar Council elections.
The noted irregularities include the following.
Failure to appoint impartial overseeing authorities
The Bar Council of India (BCI) had issued instructions last February directing State Bar Councils to appoint a former High Court judge as Returning Officer (RO) and/or Observer.
On the contrary, the RO appointed for the Karnataka Bar Council elections this year was the Secretary to the incumbent State Bar Council.
Further, the Additional Advocate General was appointed the Assistant RO. On this, the Election Tribunal comments,
“The reverse could still be conceived. We cannot as to how Learned Additional Advocate General could as the Assistant Returning Officer under the Secretary of the Bar Council, who is a permanent staff of the Bar Council.”
Private agencies employed to handle ballot papers
Private agencies were engaged to transport ballots to different polling stations after the elections with no safety or security. This was in direct violation of the BCI’s directions, which had stipulated that the same be handled with the support of proper police forces and escorts.
“But these norms have been given a complete go-bye,” notes the Tribunal.
Also highlighted is the reluctance of the Karnataka Bar Council to approach the Tribunal or other authorities for aid when police protection was apparently not forthcoming from the government. There was no material record to show that any authority was properly approached for aid before the private agency was engaged.
“It appears that just for a sheer formality, the Special Committee has sent a letter, but it was never followed up and it appears that purposely no step was taken for safe transportation of Ballot Papers and/or to depute police forces on polling booths.”
Lack of seal in strong rooms with ballot papers
The Tribunal expresses its disapproval over the lax security for the strong room meant to store ballot papers after the election.
“This so-called strong room was found to be without any seal. A simple lock was there.”
Complaints were also made to the Tribunal that the room was opened on several occasions by staff members of the Special Committee and election candidates who are “men of Members of Special Committee.”
A report by former Karnataka High Court judge Justice Anand Byrareddy, appointed as Observer by the Tribunal after the complaints initially emerged, also indicated that there was no seal or signature of either the RO or the ARO n the door of the strong room.
Ballot papers were changed/tampered
It was submitted that the ballot papers were circulated with the signature and seal of the RO even before polling, indicating that the papers were not at all safe and secured.
An attempt was made to counter this allegation, arguing that sample ballot papers were circulated prior to the elections. However, no answer was forthcoming as to how such “samples” could bear the sign and seal of the RO.
CCTV cameras not employed as directed
The complainants submitted that CCTV cameras were also manipulated to suit sinister purposes.
This apart, BCI directions were also flouted when neither the Special Committee nor the RO arranged for CCTV coverage or video coverage for recording the polling process even at the sensitive polling booths. None of five identified sensitive polling booths were monitored by CCTV cameras.
An attempt was made to present a defence that in three of the sensitive areas i.e. Chikkodi, Kudligi and Jamkhandi, “local Observers” were told to take photographs of the polling process as far as possible. Unimpressed, the Tribunal wonders in the order,
“What does he mean by word ‘Local Observers’ we fail to understand.”
Altogether, the Election Tribunal noted that Directions numbered 1, 3, 5 and 7 of the instructions issued by the BCI on February 22 for the conduct of Bar Council elections were flouted.
Special Committee pulled up
The lapses on the part of the Special Committee in securing the safe storage of the ballot paper was the primary factor that prompted the Tribunal to quash the elections.
The Tribunal observed,
“All these go to establish that elections have been held in an unfair manner, and the Special Committee has acted in a most casual and careless manner…
…such a serious and obvious lapse is certainly raising a big question mark on the fairness of the RO and Special Committee in the conduct of elections and it cannot be overlooked or ignored.
The purpose of election is to get the true representatives of the Advocates. Here, in the present case, the Special Committee and its staff seem to have acted in most arbitrary and unfair manner.”
The complaints had prompted the Tribunal to order a stay on the counting of votes earlier this month, pending its decision in the matter.
Before rendering its verdict, the Tribunal also takes a note of allegations that the Observer, Justice Byrareddy, was very close to the Members of the Special Committee. It was therefore contended that the report prepared by Justice Byrareddy was totally partial and made to favour the Special Committee and the candidates, who have been succeeded in managing the show.
However, the Tribunal found it unnecessary to go into such vague and bald allegations, particularly given that there are sufficient reasons otherwise to cast doubt on the elections. Therefore, the Tribunal decided,
“We are not going to express any opinion on such vague and bald allegations. But as noted earlier, even that report of Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy has established that the strong room was unsealed and that itself has materially affected the entire process of election.”
Fresh Election to be held from Polling stage
Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the entire election of the Karnataka State Bar Council, given the noted serious lapses. Instead, a BCI-constituted Special Committee has been tasked with conducting the election anew from the stage of polling after printing fresh ballot papers.
Further, the BCI is also expected to appoint a former judge as Returning Officer and another former judge from another state as an Observer for the elections. May 15 has been fixed as the date by which the elections should ideally be completed. The Tribunal has accordingly ordered,
“The Council should, also, request the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court to direct the police to co-operate with the Returning Officer and the Observer. Bar Council of India is to take necessary steps for conducting, completing the elections at the earliest preferably before May 15, 2018.
अख्तर खान प्रत्याक्षी बार कौंसिल ऑफ़ राजस्थान मत पत्र क्रमांक 54 कोटा राजस्थान मोबाइल 9829086339
An order to this effect was passed by Chairman and former Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court Justice SK Mukherjee, along with former Gujarat High Court judge Justice RD Vyas and former Patna High Court judge Justice Mridula Mishra yesterday, following examination of several complaints made by two Advocate-candidates, HR Durgaprasad and HC Shivaramu.
Arguments were made for the complainants by Advocates Saurabh Agarwal and Komal Mundhra. The Special Committee to the Karnataka Bar Council was represented by Advocate Sreenidhi V.
“The Election of the Karnataka State Bar Council reveals a very sorry state of affairs,” remarks the Tribunal, before detailing the various deficiencies and illegalities that vitiated the Bar Council elections.
The noted irregularities include the following.
Failure to appoint impartial overseeing authorities
The Bar Council of India (BCI) had issued instructions last February directing State Bar Councils to appoint a former High Court judge as Returning Officer (RO) and/or Observer.
On the contrary, the RO appointed for the Karnataka Bar Council elections this year was the Secretary to the incumbent State Bar Council.
Further, the Additional Advocate General was appointed the Assistant RO. On this, the Election Tribunal comments,
“The reverse could still be conceived. We cannot as to how Learned Additional Advocate General could as the Assistant Returning Officer under the Secretary of the Bar Council, who is a permanent staff of the Bar Council.”
Private agencies employed to handle ballot papers
Private agencies were engaged to transport ballots to different polling stations after the elections with no safety or security. This was in direct violation of the BCI’s directions, which had stipulated that the same be handled with the support of proper police forces and escorts.
“But these norms have been given a complete go-bye,” notes the Tribunal.
Also highlighted is the reluctance of the Karnataka Bar Council to approach the Tribunal or other authorities for aid when police protection was apparently not forthcoming from the government. There was no material record to show that any authority was properly approached for aid before the private agency was engaged.
“It appears that just for a sheer formality, the Special Committee has sent a letter, but it was never followed up and it appears that purposely no step was taken for safe transportation of Ballot Papers and/or to depute police forces on polling booths.”
Lack of seal in strong rooms with ballot papers
The Tribunal expresses its disapproval over the lax security for the strong room meant to store ballot papers after the election.
“This so-called strong room was found to be without any seal. A simple lock was there.”
Complaints were also made to the Tribunal that the room was opened on several occasions by staff members of the Special Committee and election candidates who are “men of Members of Special Committee.”
A report by former Karnataka High Court judge Justice Anand Byrareddy, appointed as Observer by the Tribunal after the complaints initially emerged, also indicated that there was no seal or signature of either the RO or the ARO n the door of the strong room.
Ballot papers were changed/tampered
It was submitted that the ballot papers were circulated with the signature and seal of the RO even before polling, indicating that the papers were not at all safe and secured.
An attempt was made to counter this allegation, arguing that sample ballot papers were circulated prior to the elections. However, no answer was forthcoming as to how such “samples” could bear the sign and seal of the RO.
CCTV cameras not employed as directed
The complainants submitted that CCTV cameras were also manipulated to suit sinister purposes.
This apart, BCI directions were also flouted when neither the Special Committee nor the RO arranged for CCTV coverage or video coverage for recording the polling process even at the sensitive polling booths. None of five identified sensitive polling booths were monitored by CCTV cameras.
An attempt was made to present a defence that in three of the sensitive areas i.e. Chikkodi, Kudligi and Jamkhandi, “local Observers” were told to take photographs of the polling process as far as possible. Unimpressed, the Tribunal wonders in the order,
“What does he mean by word ‘Local Observers’ we fail to understand.”
Altogether, the Election Tribunal noted that Directions numbered 1, 3, 5 and 7 of the instructions issued by the BCI on February 22 for the conduct of Bar Council elections were flouted.
Special Committee pulled up
The lapses on the part of the Special Committee in securing the safe storage of the ballot paper was the primary factor that prompted the Tribunal to quash the elections.
The Tribunal observed,
“All these go to establish that elections have been held in an unfair manner, and the Special Committee has acted in a most casual and careless manner…
…such a serious and obvious lapse is certainly raising a big question mark on the fairness of the RO and Special Committee in the conduct of elections and it cannot be overlooked or ignored.
The purpose of election is to get the true representatives of the Advocates. Here, in the present case, the Special Committee and its staff seem to have acted in most arbitrary and unfair manner.”
The complaints had prompted the Tribunal to order a stay on the counting of votes earlier this month, pending its decision in the matter.
Before rendering its verdict, the Tribunal also takes a note of allegations that the Observer, Justice Byrareddy, was very close to the Members of the Special Committee. It was therefore contended that the report prepared by Justice Byrareddy was totally partial and made to favour the Special Committee and the candidates, who have been succeeded in managing the show.
However, the Tribunal found it unnecessary to go into such vague and bald allegations, particularly given that there are sufficient reasons otherwise to cast doubt on the elections. Therefore, the Tribunal decided,
“We are not going to express any opinion on such vague and bald allegations. But as noted earlier, even that report of Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy has established that the strong room was unsealed and that itself has materially affected the entire process of election.”
Fresh Election to be held from Polling stage
Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the entire election of the Karnataka State Bar Council, given the noted serious lapses. Instead, a BCI-constituted Special Committee has been tasked with conducting the election anew from the stage of polling after printing fresh ballot papers.
Further, the BCI is also expected to appoint a former judge as Returning Officer and another former judge from another state as an Observer for the elections. May 15 has been fixed as the date by which the elections should ideally be completed. The Tribunal has accordingly ordered,
“The Council should, also, request the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court to direct the police to co-operate with the Returning Officer and the Observer. Bar Council of India is to take necessary steps for conducting, completing the elections at the earliest preferably before May 15, 2018.
अख्तर खान प्रत्याक्षी बार कौंसिल ऑफ़ राजस्थान मत पत्र क्रमांक 54 कोटा राजस्थान मोबाइल 9829086339
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें
दोस्तों, कुछ गिले-शिकवे और कुछ सुझाव भी देते जाओ. जनाब! मेरा यह ब्लॉग आप सभी भाईयों का अपना ब्लॉग है. इसमें आपका स्वागत है. इसकी गलतियों (दोषों व कमियों) को सुधारने के लिए मेहरबानी करके मुझे सुझाव दें. मैं आपका आभारी रहूँगा. अख्तर खान "अकेला" कोटा(राजस्थान)