Supreme Court asks Election Commission: What happens to poll cash seizure cases post Elections?

April 4, 2019:

Supreme Court: What happens to poll cash seizure cases? EC shrugs.

Unaccounted cash or valuables and suspect items being seized by the poll panel's flying squads is a regular occurrence during election season. But what happens once a seizure is made — are the accused caught and the case resolved?

When the Supreme Court recently wished to know the answer to this question in a case from Karnataka, the judges were baffled to know that neither the Election Commission nor the Centre has any clue. The Commission claimed that their job ends with the registration of the first information report (FIR), while the Centre maintained that during Lok Sabha polls, they follow a hands-off approach.

The matter has to be then pursued by the respective state governments who seldom have any interest to punish the offenders, who happen to be candidates of the party or the alliance in power.

Finding this unpleasant reality to hit the very foundation of free and fair elections, a bench of Justices NV Ramana and Mohan M Shantanagouder has now set out to fix the gaps by demanding a complete list of cases lodged by the EC in the last parliamentary polls held in 2014.

The court directed the poll panel to indicate the place and number of cases lodged along with the worth of valuables or cash seized. The bench indicated that once the pan-India statistics are received, the concerned state governments will be put to notice to indicate the status of these cases and the reasons for delay in their resolution. The EC is expected to file its response by Friday.

The genesis of the proceedings before the court is an order passed by the Karnataka High Court on February 12, 2015 quashing a case of unaccounted wealth against a businessman in Bellary parliamentary constituency during the 2014 Lok Sabha elections.

The flying squad of EC, acting on some information it received, swooped down on the house of a Bellary businessman from where the squad recovered Rs 20,48,355 in unaccounted cash and signed cheque leaves of various banks.

A case under Sections 171E (bribery) and 188 (disobeying order of public servant) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were registered against him. With elections over, the matter stood transferred to the Karnataka government.

The HC noted in its order that the prosecution miserably failed to establish to whom the "bribe" was intended to be paid as there was no complaint by the victim or any affected people.

Even the cash seized did not match the figure cited in the FIR. Furthermore, the HC held that the complaint did not disclose which order of the public servant the accused consciously violated. It was against this order, the Karnataka government approached SC.

Taking a cue from the case, the apex bench asked the EC, "During the three months when the elections are on, you (EC) virtually take over the country. You are the authority. Who ensures that the case is prosecuted properly?" The poll panel said, "We are not an investigating agency. But we are duty-bound to register a case. It is for the state to take it forward."

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Pinky Anand, who appeared for the Centre, submitted that the Centre has practically no role left to play in sc matters after the General Elections are announced.

Advocate for the businessman, Kuriakose Varghese, pointed out that the fair conduct of elections is a duty cast upon the EC under Article 124, and thus, it cannot absolve itself from ensuring that the cases lodged by it are taken to its logical end.

The court said that it will consider the larger issue involved without focussing on the case at hand.

SC glares at gaps in the system Moves to take action on cases lying in limbo since last general elections

Once unaccounted-for cash or valuables are confiscated, EC registers FIR Poll panel maintains that this is where its job ends, since it is not a probing agency Centre says it follows a non-interventionist policy in such cases once poll dates are announced It is then up to states to pursue case, but they seldom do as culprits are linked to them, or their detention might open a can of worms Responses from EC, Centre leave top court baffled; it has asked for a list of all such cases from 2014 elections so they may be tracked. Source Link