grounds that the election (of 26 April) had taken place before the order of the High Court (announced on 30 April).2 The case remains open, however, awaiting a final ruling of the supreme court. Nevertheless, the Patna High Court decision may lead to new measures to prevent those convicted of serious offences from contesting elections. Another effort to increase accountability and political transparency came in the form of a lawsuit initiated by an NGO, Krishak Bharat, seeking to recover money owed for electricity, water and telephone charges by 656 current and former members of parliament. The money was owed to the New Delhi Municipal Corporation and the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam. In March 2004, the Delhi High Court directed the election commission to make this information public. Later, the High Court asked the secretariats of both houses of parliament to ensure recovery of dues from parliamentarians.3 The civil society group Lok Sevak Sangh filed a petition to the supreme court in July 2003 seeking the scrapping of the Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme. The programme, which entitles a member of parliament to spend 20 million rupees (US $440,000) every year on welfare schemes in their constituency, has been plagued by misuse, according to a report by the comptroller and auditor-general submitted to the president in 2001. The group contends that the scheme gives incumbent members of parliament an unfair advantage against their opponents at election time. A coalition of 22 NGOs formed an ‘election watch’ for state elections in Delhi,
Chhatisgarh and Gujarat in 2003–04. During the general election of April–May 2004, an election watch was mounted in 12 states across the country. The task of the election watchdogs was to raise awareness among voters about their right to vote, collect data on the criminal records and financial liabilities of the candidates, and keep the public informed about their candidates. Observers also monitored the corrupt practices of political parties during the campaign and on election day. The election watch NGO coalition called on all the parties to declare their policy on corruption, particularly their positions on establishing an ombudsman’s office at national and state levels, a code of ethics for ministers and parliamentarians, a regular audit of the accounts of political parties and a bill on whistleblowing. There have been positive steps towards electoral transparency in India. The electoral commission’s requirements were by and large respected and civil society initiatives have achieved significant results. On the negative side, while the parties made statements about the need to fight corruption they did not commit to specifics. Furthermore, despite the declaration of candidates’ assets and criminal records, several candidates with criminal backgrounds were still elected. This can be explained in part by the popularity of particular candidates, but also many voters continue to base their decisions on a system of patronage, whereby politicians are known to buy votes through offering improved access to public services. P. S. Bawa (TI India)
Further reading Centre for Media Studies, Corruption in Urban Public Services (New Delhi: 2003), www. cmsindia.org S. K. Das, Public Office, Private Interest: Bureaucracy and Corruption in India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001) Garry Jeffrey Jacobsohn, The Wheel of Law (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2003)
158
Country reports
GC2005 02 chap06 158
13/1/05 4:34:13 pm