Published in the Daily O The last minute ordinance promulgated by the BJP-led Rajasthan Government, which mandates minimum educational attainment of 8th and 10th pass, for candidates wanting to contest Panchayati Raj elections has elicited some rather bizarre justifications. There are three lines of justification advanced by the BJP Government: first, that PRI representatives play an executive role and are embroiled in corruption cases and often use their ignorance of law/rules as an excuse when they are investigated. The second line of justification, advanced even by the BJP Government at the Center is that this was idea originally mooted by the Congress-led Government in Rajasthan and thus the Congress Party cannot reasonably oppose this amendment now. Other supporters of the Ordinance have sought refuge in its alleged legality citing the Supreme Court, which held that the right to contest elections is a statutory not fundamental right and the states are competent to legislate eligibility criteria in the appropriate statute. All three arguments deliberately blur important distinctions to cover blatant illegality and arbitrariness.
Compounding Illegality with Illogic
Compounding Illegality with Illogic
Compounding Illegality with Illogic
Published in the Daily O The last minute ordinance promulgated by the BJP-led Rajasthan Government, which mandates minimum educational attainment of 8th and 10th pass, for candidates wanting to contest Panchayati Raj elections has elicited some rather bizarre justifications. There are three lines of justification advanced by the BJP Government: first, that PRI representatives play an executive role and are embroiled in corruption cases and often use their ignorance of law/rules as an excuse when they are investigated. The second line of justification, advanced even by the BJP Government at the Center is that this was idea originally mooted by the Congress-led Government in Rajasthan and thus the Congress Party cannot reasonably oppose this amendment now. Other supporters of the Ordinance have sought refuge in its alleged legality citing the Supreme Court, which held that the right to contest elections is a statutory not fundamental right and the states are competent to legislate eligibility criteria in the appropriate statute. All three arguments deliberately blur important distinctions to cover blatant illegality and arbitrariness.