>--a cool judgement.
** I agree. That is the good part. But HOW would it get enforced? Would it? That is the weakest link and that is where it always falls apart. At 2:01 AM -0500 3/13/03, Saurav Pathak wrote: >Candidates must declare assets, >pending cases: SC > >March 13, 2003 12:17 IST > >The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a major portion of the >Electoral Reforms Law, saying candidates must declare their assets >and all pending criminal cases against them at the time of filing >nominations. > >A three-judge bench comprising Justice M B Shah, Justice P V Reddi >and Justice D M Dharmadhakari gave separate but concurring >judgements holding that the amendment to the Section 33 B of the >Representation of Peoples Act were "illegal and null and void." > >The bench said the attempt by the Government of India to introduce >electoral reforms was half-hearted and not >enough to stop money and muscle power from playing a role in the >election. > >The bench said the Election Commission must issue a new guideline >for implementation of the present judgement. > >The bench said the width and amplitude of the rights of voters to >know about the antecedents of the candidates was >different from their right to information from the media. > >"The freedom to vote is equal to the right of expression and hence >this new legislation which curtailed this right could be held to be >violative of Article 19 which guarantees right to freedom of >expression," the bench said. >-- >saurav >_______________________________________________ >Assam mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam _______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
