State Funding of Elections

Vivake - December 22, 2010

In the recently concluded Congress plenary, Congress President Sonia Gandhi suggested state financing of elections as a measure against corruption in the electoral process. State funding of elections has been suggested in the past in response to the high cost of elections. A few government reports have looked at state funding of elections in the past, including:

Indrajit Gupta Committee on State Funding of Elections (1998)
Law Commission Report on Reform of the Electoral Laws (1999)
National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2001)
Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2008)

Here is what they had to say: The Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998) endorsed state funding of elections, seeing “full justification constitutional, legal as well as on ground of public interest” in order to establish a fair playing field for parties with less money. The Committee recommended two limitations to state funding. Firstly, that state funds should be given only to national and state parties allotted a symbol and not to independent candidates. Secondly, that in the short-term state funding should only be given in kind, in the form of certain facilities to the recognised political parties and their candidates. The Committee noted that at the time of the report the economic situation of the country only suited partial and not full state funding of elections. The 1999 Law Commission of India report concluded that total state funding of elections is “desirable” so long as political parties are prohibited from taking funds from other sources. The Commission concurred with the Indrajit Gupta Committee that only partial state funding was possible given the economic conditions of the country at that time. Additionally, it strongly recommended that the appropriate regulatory framework be put in place with regard to political parties (provisions ensuring internal democracy, internal structures and maintenance of accounts, their auditing and submission to Election Commission) before state funding of elections is attempted. “Ethics in Governance”, a report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2008) also recommended partial state funding of elections for the purpose of reducing “illegitimate and unnecessary funding” of elections expenses. The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, 2001, did not endorse state funding of elections but concurred with the 1999 Law Commission report that the appropriate framework for regulation of political parties would need to be implemented before state funding is considered.

Constitution

Explainer: Mechanisms to investigate charges against a Supreme Court judge

Roshni Sinha - April 25, 2019

This week, an in-house inquiry committee was constituted to consider a complaint against the current Chief Justice of India. Over the years, three mechanisms have evolved to investigate cases of misconduct, including cases of sexual harassment, misbehaviour or incapacity against judges. In this blog, we summarise the procedure for investigating such charges against judges of the Supreme Court.

In-house procedure (1999): The Supreme Court has an in-house process to deal with allegations against a judge relating to the discharge of his judicial function, or with regard to his conduct or behaviour outside court.
Sexual harassment guidelines: In 2013, Parliament passed the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. Subsequently, the Supreme Court framed regulations for protection of women against sexual harassment in the Supreme Court. Under the regulations, the CJI is required to constitute a Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee (GSICC). The GSICC will include 7-13 members including: (i) one or two judges of the Supreme Court, and (ii) up to two outside members (having experience in social justice, women empowerment, gender justice, among others) to be nominated by the CJI. The Regulations require the majority of the members of GSICC to be women. As of 2018, the GSICC has received 13 complaints, out of which 10 have been disposed of.
Removal for proven misbehaviour or incapacity: Charges of misconduct may also be investigated in the context of proceedings for removal of a judge. Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India provides that a judge can be removed only by Parliament on the basis of a motion in either the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha. The procedure for removal of judges is elaborated in the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968. Till date, no judge of the higher judiciary has been impeached under this process.

Table 1: Process for investigation of charges against a Supreme Court judge

	In-house Procedure of Supreme Court	2013 SC Sexual Harassment Regulation	Removal Proceedings
Who may file a complaint	Complaint of misconduct may be filed by any person.	Written complaint of sexual harassment by a woman.	Signed notice by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha, or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha on charges of misbehaviour or incapacity by a judge.
Persons to whom complaint must be filed	CJI or President of India	GSICC	Presiding Officer of the relevant House of Parliament
Preliminary Inquiry	The CJI is required to determine whether the complaint is either frivolous or serious. If the complaint is frivolous or relates to a pending case, no further action will be taken. If the CJI finds that the complaint involves serious misconduct or impropriety, he will seek the response of the concerned Judge. Based on the response and supporting materials, if the CJI finds that the complaint needs a deeper probe, he will constitute an inquiry committee.	If the GSICC is satisfied that the complaint is genuine, it will constitute a three-member Internal Sub-Committee to conduct an inquiry into the complaint.	If the notice is in order, the Presiding Officer will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the complaint.
Composition of Inquiry Committee	The Committee will comprise three judges including a Judge of the Supreme Court and two Chief Justices of other High Courts.	The Committee will comprise members of the GSICC or persons nominated by the GSICC, with majority members being a woman and an outside member.	The committee will comprise a Supreme Court judge, Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist.
Time limit for submission of inquiry report	No specific time limit provided.	To be completed within 90 days of the constitution of the Internal Sub-Committee, and forwarded to the GSICC within 10 days of completion.	To be submitted to the presiding officer within 90 days.
Findings of the Committee	The Committee may report to the CJI that: 1. there is no substance in the allegation made, or, 2. there is substance in the allegations but the misconduct is not of such serious nature as to warrant removal, or, 3. the misconduct is serious enough to initiate removal proceedings against the judge.	If the committee concludes that the allegation has been proved, it will submit its report to the GSICC to pass appropriate orders within 45 days. If more than two thirds of the GSICC members differ from the conclusion of the Committee, it will, after hearing the complainant and the accused, record its reasons for differing and pass orders.	After concluding its investigation, the Committee will submit its report to the presiding officer, who will lay the report before the relevant House.
Action taken upon submission of report	If the finding is under category (2) above, the CJI may call and advise the Judge accordingly and direct that the report be placed on record. If the finding is under category (3) above, the CJI may ask the judge to resign or seek voluntary retirement. If the judge refuses to resign, the CJI may decide to not allocate any judicial work to the judge concerned. Further, the CJI may inform the President of India and the Prime Minister of his reasons for the action taken and forward a copy of the inquiry report to them.	The GSICC has the power to: (i) to pass an order of admonition (reprimand), which may also be published in the court precinct, or (ii) pass an order to prohibit the accused from harassing or communicating with the complainant, or (iii) pass any other order to end the sexual harassment faced by the complainant. GSICC may also recommend to the CJI to pass orders against the accused, including: (i) prohibiting entry of the accused into the Supreme Court for up to a year, or (ii) filing a criminal complaint before the concerned disciplinary authority governing the accused.	If the report records a finding of misbehaviour or incapacity, the motion for removal will be taken up for consideration and debated. The motion is required to be adopted by each House by a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of at least two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting. Once the motion is adopted in both Houses, it is sent to the President, who will issue an order for the removal of the judge.
Process for Appeals	No specific provision.	Any aggrieved person may make a representation to the CJI to set aside/modify the orders passed by the GSICC. The CJI also has the power to issue any other orders in order to secure justice to the victim.	No specific provision.

Sources: Report of the Committee on In-House Procedure, December 1999, Supreme Court of India; Gender Sensitisation and Sexual Harassment of Women at the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Regulations, 2013; Article 124(4), Constitution of India; Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 read with the Judges Inquiry Rules, 1969; PRS.

Home

MPs & MLAs

Legislatures

Parliament

State

Bills & Acts

Budgets

Policy

LAMP

Careers

State Funding of Elections

Explainer: Mechanisms to investigate charges against a Supreme Court judge

Recent Posts