An interesting petition was filed on Monday in the Supreme Court raising the constitutional issue on “proportionate representation” in the President’s election and seeking to define it, particularly in the light of political parties pledging their support to a candidate sponsored by a rival party against which they had contested the elections.
The PIL, which is likely to be taken up for hearing this week, questioned pledging of the support by those political parties to a candidate sponsored by a party against which they had declared opposition publicly to the electorates in their election manifesto.
While seeking a clear definition of “proportionate representation” principle in the light of such a scenario, a public interest litigation filed by advocate M.L. Sharma claimed that such alignment would not only amount to “betrayal” of the people’s mandate but also “breach of trust” and “cheating” as defined under the Indian Penal Code.
Besides, the Union government, the petitioner has named the Congress, Samajwadi Party, Bahujan Samaj Party, JD(U), Shiv Sena and CPI(M) as respondents for making such alignment for the President’s election.
The petitioner stated that the SP, BSP, JD(U), Shiv Sena and CPI(M) which had declared their support to the Congress candidate (Pranab Mukherjee) had contested election both for Parliament and state assemblies against the Congress and the mandate of the people to the MLAs and MPs elected on the ticket of these five parties was obviously against the Congress.
Whether the MLAs and MPs belonging to these five parties, which went to people to seek votes against the Congress has a right to shift their support to a candidate sponsored by the Congress without seeking such a mandate from the electorate.
The petitioner has also tried to differentiate between voting inside the House in an alliance government and casting of votes for electing the President under “proportionate representation” principle as each of their MLA and MP in fact carried forward the mandate of his electorate.
Since this aspect of “proportional representation” has not come for defining before the SC earlier, the petitioner has urged the court to declare the constitutional position on the issue.