Say no to crime and corruption in Karnataka's Lok Sabha politics
Sign Now
http://www.adrindia.org/images/karnataka.pdf
Karnataka state in India has 28 parliamentary or Lok Sabha (LS) or Lower House constituencies.
Summary for Lok Sabha (LS 2004 & LS 2009)
Karnataka MPs (Members of Parliament)
Karnataka MPs' pending criminal cases and pending serious criminal cases
In LS 2009, 09/28 (32\%) MPs have pending criminal cases against them and 5 among (out of) these 9 MPs have pending serious criminal cases - BJP 6, INC 1 and JD[S] 2.
In LS 2004, 06/28 (21\%) MPs had pending criminal cases against them and 2 among (out of) these 6 MPs had serious pending criminal cases - BJP 5, INC 0 and JD[S] 1.
LS 2004-LS 2009: The number of total
01) MPs with pending criminal cases has increased from 06 to 09 by 03 (50\%).
02) pending criminal cases against MPs has increased from 13 to 32 by 19 (146\%).
03) MPs with pending serious criminal cases has increased from 02 to 05 by 03 (150\%).
04) serious IPC [Indian Penal Code] sections against MPs has increased from 06 in to 08 by 02 (33\%).
05) crorepati/millionaire MPs has increased from 10 to 25 by 15 (150\%).
150\% increase in crorepati / millionaire K'taka MPs from 2004 to 2009
25/28 MPs from Karnataka are crorepatis / millionaires in LS 2009 as compared to 10/28 crorepatis / millionaires in LS 2004. There's been an increase of 150\% in number of crorepati / millionaire MPs from LS 2004.
500\% increase in the average asset of a K'taka MP from 2004 to 2009
The average asset of a/an MP which was Rs 123 lakhs in LS 2004 rose to Rs 736 lakhs in LS 2009 by 613 (498~500\%). The average asset of a/an MP in LS 2004 was Rs 123 lakhs which rose to Rs 736 lakhs in 2009. Between 2004 & 2009 there's been an average asset increase of almost 500\% for MPs.
Average asset for a/an MP from Karnataka was Rs 7.36 crores. It's increased from 123 in 2004 to 736 in 2009 by 498\%.
90\% of all MPs in Karnataka are crorepatis
Among major parties, the average asset per MP for JD(S) was Rs. 18 crores, for BJP was Rs 6 crores and for INC was Rs. 5 crores. 100\% of INC and JD(S) MPs are crorepatis. Almost 90\% of all MPs in Karnataka are crorepatis.
25/28 89\% MPs were crorepatis / millionaires - BJP 16/19 (82\%), INC 06/06 (100\%) and JD[S] 03/03 (100\%).
PAN (Permanent Account Number) details of 03 K'taka MPs undeclared
03 (BJP 2 & INC 1) crorepati / millionaire MPs Out of a total of 28 MPs have/had not declared their PAN (Permanent Account Number) details even though their declarations are part of the affidavit. PAN details of 03/28 undeclared.
Only 01 out of 19 women candidates managed to win. 01/19 women candidates won.
Summary for Lok Sabha (LS) 2009 candidates
47/421 11\% candidates declared pending criminal cases against them - BJP 10/28 (36\%), INC 09/28 (32\%) and JD(S) 07/21 (33\%).
19/47 candidates had pending serious criminal cases like murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, robbery, extortion etc. - BJP 04/19, JD(S) 04/19 and INC 03/19.
Candidates having pending criminal cases in K'taka LS 2009 & LS 2004
2009: 105 candidates of 04 main parties - BJP, INC, JD(S) and BSP. 32/105 (30\%) had pending criminal cases against them.
2004: 87 candidates of 04 major parties - BJP, INC, JD(S) and BSP. 09/87 (10\%) had pending criminal cases against them.
34 IPC charges of heinous nature in LS 2009
34 IPC charges of heinous nature which included murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, extortion, etc.
08 Red Alert constituencies in LS 2009
There were total 8 Red Alert constituencies where 03 or more contesting candidates had pending criminal cases. Bangalore rural had 05 candidates with pending criminal cases.
094/421 22\% candidates were crorepatis / millionaires - BJP 23/28 (82\%), INC 22/28 (79\%) and JD[S] 17/21 (81\%).
26 had declared zero assets.
106 declared liabilities above 5 lakhs.
Average approximate asset per candidate of a major party
The average approximate asset per candidate of a major party - JD(S) Rs.17 crores, BJP Rs.8 crores and INC Rs.5 crores. JD(S) candidates had average assets in excess of 16 crores and those of BJP had assets in excess of 7 crores.
260/421 62\% candidates had not furnished PAN (Permanent Account Number) card details.
019/427 (4\%) were women and 408/427 (96\%) were men.
191/421 (45\%) were graduates & above.
None of the parties managed to get 50\% votes. The highest votes polled were approx 42\% by BJP and about 26\% of the total registered voters.
http://www.adrindia.org/images/pdf/recommendations_adrnew.pdf
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/no-to-crime-corruption-in-politics
Recommendations for implementing and enforcing Electoral Reforms
1. For upholding the highest traditions of probity and morality in public life, any person against whom charges have been framed by a Court of Law of serious offences like murder, attempt to murder, rape, kidnapping, extortion, etc. should not be allowed to contest elections.
2. In order to protect the identity of a voter wishing to exercise his/her right under Section 49(O), an additional button on the EVM should be there saying "None of the Above".
3. Candidates should declare their income and sources of income along with the current declaration of assets and liabilities at the time of nominations.
4. The excessive use of money in elections vitiates democracy. Anyone who breaks the law by giving money and gifts to voters, or exceeding the legal spending limits should have his/her election set aside.
5. The information given in the affidavits on criminal charges, assets etc. should be verified by an independent central authority in a time bound manner. Strong action should be taken against candidates on finding serious anomalies.
6. Clean and accurate voter rolls are the very basis for a functioning democracy. The process to keep them accurate and updated should be made completely citizen friendly. There should be only one voter list for all elections. Access to voter rolls should be made available at all times.
7. As people have the right to elect their representatives, they should also have the right to recall them.
8. The Election Commissioners should be appointed by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Deputy Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha.
9. The Election Commissioners should not be eligible for any office after retirement for a period of 5 years. They should also not be allowed to join any political party for a period of 5 years after retirement.
Resolutions 1 and 2 above are supported by the Election Commission of India. The EC has written to the Prime Minister with this and several other suggestions a few years ago. Resolution 2 above emerged as the single most repeated demand across the country.
Recommendations for implementing and enforcing the reform of Political Parties
1. There is an urgent need for a comprehensive Bill to regulate political parties. An excellent draft for this has already been prepared by the Law Commission. Such a Bill needs to be passed by Parliament.
2. There is a need to make it mandatory for all recognized registered political parties to have democratically elected bodies and their functioning, including their financial status, should be made transparent and known to all.
3. Since it has been made mandatory for all candidates to make their financial status public, the political parties should also be called upon to regularly file statements of their assets and liabilities, which should also be made public.
4. Political parties and candidates should declare their sources of funds well before elections so that voters can make an informed choice.
Other Issues
The allocation of public funds in the name of MP and MLA Local Area Development should be stopped immediately as it encourages corruption.
In India there are Bills to regulate Companies, Charitable trusts, Societies, Cooperatives, Hospitals, Educational Institutions, Trade Unions, places of worship and other forms of organized activity. However there is no Bill to regulate political parties. Several other countries have such Bills.
The two mains issues at this point in time are regulation of political party and election funding and expenses, and ensuring inner party democracy.
The question is why the powers that be want "consensus" or why "lack of unanimity" should stand in the way of introducing a law for preventing criminals from contesting elections?
The Constitution of India does not need 'Consensus' for passing any Bill.
Standing for elections is not a Fundamental Right under the/our Indian Constitution although the 'right to vote' is a fundamental right.
Why elevate the legal right to contest under Representation of People Act into a Constitutional right by ensuring protections like Section 8(4) of R.P. Act of 1951?
Why can't persons with criminal antecedents be disqualified to contest?
Why's 'conviction' essential?
Why clear doubts on the integrity and/or character of a person be not a good ground to disqualify?
Why should the People be made to bear with criminals in power?
Parliament and/or Legislatures are not 'Employment Exchange(s)'.
Unless the Govt. can ensure that the trial of a politician for a criminal offence will be over within 6 months, that an Appeal against the conviction must be filed within one month and Appeal must be decided within 3 months and there shall be no further Appeal/Revision to any Court (including Supreme Court except on a point of Constitutional Law), criminals will continue to rule in corridors of power.
The concept of 'innocent until proved guilty may hold field in civil life/society but not in law making bodies criminals must and should not and never be/become lawmakers!
Kindly implement and enforce these recommendations of the ARC at the earliest:
(i) Confiscation of property wrongfully acquired, since this recommendation along with the recommendation of Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act 1988 have both been accepted by the Union Govt.
(ii) Disqualification of tainted candidates for elections to Parliament and State Legislatures.
(iii) Immediately appoint a Lokpal who's undiluted prosecution powers.
Karnataka state in India has 28 parliamentary or Lok Sabha (LS) or Lower House constituencies.
Summary for Lok Sabha (LS 2004 & LS 2009)
Karnataka MPs (Members of Parliament)
Karnataka MPs' pending criminal cases and pending serious criminal cases
In LS 2009, 09/28 (32\%) MPs have pending criminal cases against them and 5 among (out of) these 9 MPs have pending serious criminal cases - BJP 6, INC 1 and JD[S] 2.
In LS 2004, 06/28 (21\%) MPs had pending criminal cases against them and 2 among (out of) these 6 MPs had serious pending criminal cases - BJP 5, INC 0 and JD[S] 1.
LS 2004-LS 2009: The number of total
01) MPs with pending criminal cases has increased from 06 to 09 by 03 (50\%).
02) pending criminal cases against MPs has increased from 13 to 32 by 19 (146\%).
03) MPs with pending serious criminal cases has increased from 02 to 05 by 03 (150\%).
04) serious IPC [Indian Penal Code] sections against MPs has increased from 06 in to 08 by 02 (33\%).
05) crorepati/millionaire MPs has increased from 10 to 25 by 15 (150\%).
150\% increase in crorepati / millionaire K'taka MPs from 2004 to 2009
25/28 MPs from Karnataka are crorepatis / millionaires in LS 2009 as compared to 10/28 crorepatis / millionaires in LS 2004. There's been an increase of 150\% in number of crorepati / millionaire MPs from LS 2004.
500\% increase in the average asset of a K'taka MP from 2004 to 2009
The average asset of a/an MP which was Rs 123 lakhs in LS 2004 rose to Rs 736 lakhs in LS 2009 by 613 (498~500\%). The average asset of a/an MP in LS 2004 was Rs 123 lakhs which rose to Rs 736 lakhs in 2009. Between 2004 & 2009 there's been an average asset increase of almost 500\% for MPs.
Average asset for a/an MP from Karnataka was Rs 7.36 crores. It's increased from 123 in 2004 to 736 in 2009 by 498\%.
90\% of all MPs in Karnataka are crorepatis
Among major parties, the average asset per MP for JD(S) was Rs. 18 crores, for BJP was Rs 6 crores and for INC was Rs. 5 crores. 100\% of INC and JD(S) MPs are crorepatis. Almost 90\% of all MPs in Karnataka are crorepatis.
25/28 89\% MPs were crorepatis / millionaires - BJP 16/19 (82\%), INC 06/06 (100\%) and JD[S] 03/03 (100\%).
PAN (Permanent Account Number) details of 03 K'taka MPs undeclared
03 (BJP 2 & INC 1) crorepati / millionaire MPs Out of a total of 28 MPs have/had not declared their PAN (Permanent Account Number) details even though their declarations are part of the affidavit. PAN details of 03/28 undeclared.
Only 01 out of 19 women candidates managed to win. 01/19 women candidates won.
Summary for Lok Sabha (LS) 2009 candidates
47/421 11\% candidates declared pending criminal cases against them - BJP 10/28 (36\%), INC 09/28 (32\%) and JD(S) 07/21 (33\%).
19/47 candidates had pending serious criminal cases like murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, robbery, extortion etc. - BJP 04/19, JD(S) 04/19 and INC 03/19.
Candidates having pending criminal cases in K'taka LS 2009 & LS 2004
2009: 105 candidates of 04 main parties - BJP, INC, JD(S) and BSP. 32/105 (30\%) had pending criminal cases against them.
2004: 87 candidates of 04 major parties - BJP, INC, JD(S) and BSP. 09/87 (10\%) had pending criminal cases against them.
34 IPC charges of heinous nature in LS 2009
34 IPC charges of heinous nature which included murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, extortion, etc.
08 Red Alert constituencies in LS 2009
There were total 8 Red Alert constituencies where 03 or more contesting candidates had pending criminal cases. Bangalore rural had 05 candidates with pending criminal cases.
094/421 22\% candidates were crorepatis / millionaires - BJP 23/28 (82\%), INC 22/28 (79\%) and JD[S] 17/21 (81\%).
26 had declared zero assets.
106 declared liabilities above 5 lakhs.
Average approximate asset per candidate of a major party
The average approximate asset per candidate of a major party - JD(S) Rs.17 crores, BJP Rs.8 crores and INC Rs.5 crores. JD(S) candidates had average assets in excess of 16 crores and those of BJP had assets in excess of 7 crores.
260/421 62\% candidates had not furnished PAN (Permanent Account Number) card details.
019/427 (4\%) were women and 408/427 (96\%) were men.
191/421 (45\%) were graduates & above.
None of the parties managed to get 50\% votes. The highest votes polled were approx 42\% by BJP and about 26\% of the total registered voters.
http://www.adrindia.org/images/pdf/recommendations_adrnew.pdf
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/no-to-crime-corruption-in-politics
Recommendations for implementing and enforcing Electoral Reforms
1. For upholding the highest traditions of probity and morality in public life, any person against whom charges have been framed by a Court of Law of serious offences like murder, attempt to murder, rape, kidnapping, extortion, etc. should not be allowed to contest elections.
2. In order to protect the identity of a voter wishing to exercise his/her right under Section 49(O), an additional button on the EVM should be there saying "None of the Above".
3. Candidates should declare their income and sources of income along with the current declaration of assets and liabilities at the time of nominations.
4. The excessive use of money in elections vitiates democracy. Anyone who breaks the law by giving money and gifts to voters, or exceeding the legal spending limits should have his/her election set aside.
5. The information given in the affidavits on criminal charges, assets etc. should be verified by an independent central authority in a time bound manner. Strong action should be taken against candidates on finding serious anomalies.
6. Clean and accurate voter rolls are the very basis for a functioning democracy. The process to keep them accurate and updated should be made completely citizen friendly. There should be only one voter list for all elections. Access to voter rolls should be made available at all times.
7. As people have the right to elect their representatives, they should also have the right to recall them.
8. The Election Commissioners should be appointed by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Deputy Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha.
9. The Election Commissioners should not be eligible for any office after retirement for a period of 5 years. They should also not be allowed to join any political party for a period of 5 years after retirement.
Resolutions 1 and 2 above are supported by the Election Commission of India. The EC has written to the Prime Minister with this and several other suggestions a few years ago. Resolution 2 above emerged as the single most repeated demand across the country.
Recommendations for implementing and enforcing the reform of Political Parties
1. There is an urgent need for a comprehensive Bill to regulate political parties. An excellent draft for this has already been prepared by the Law Commission. Such a Bill needs to be passed by Parliament.
2. There is a need to make it mandatory for all recognized registered political parties to have democratically elected bodies and their functioning, including their financial status, should be made transparent and known to all.
3. Since it has been made mandatory for all candidates to make their financial status public, the political parties should also be called upon to regularly file statements of their assets and liabilities, which should also be made public.
4. Political parties and candidates should declare their sources of funds well before elections so that voters can make an informed choice.
Other Issues
The allocation of public funds in the name of MP and MLA Local Area Development should be stopped immediately as it encourages corruption.
In India there are Bills to regulate Companies, Charitable trusts, Societies, Cooperatives, Hospitals, Educational Institutions, Trade Unions, places of worship and other forms of organized activity. However there is no Bill to regulate political parties. Several other countries have such Bills.
The two mains issues at this point in time are regulation of political party and election funding and expenses, and ensuring inner party democracy.
The question is why the powers that be want "consensus" or why "lack of unanimity" should stand in the way of introducing a law for preventing criminals from contesting elections?
The Constitution of India does not need 'Consensus' for passing any Bill.
Standing for elections is not a Fundamental Right under the/our Indian Constitution although the 'right to vote' is a fundamental right.
Why elevate the legal right to contest under Representation of People Act into a Constitutional right by ensuring protections like Section 8(4) of R.P. Act of 1951?
Why can't persons with criminal antecedents be disqualified to contest?
Why's 'conviction' essential?
Why clear doubts on the integrity and/or character of a person be not a good ground to disqualify?
Why should the People be made to bear with criminals in power?
Parliament and/or Legislatures are not 'Employment Exchange(s)'.
Unless the Govt. can ensure that the trial of a politician for a criminal offence will be over within 6 months, that an Appeal against the conviction must be filed within one month and Appeal must be decided within 3 months and there shall be no further Appeal/Revision to any Court (including Supreme Court except on a point of Constitutional Law), criminals will continue to rule in corridors of power.
The concept of 'innocent until proved guilty may hold field in civil life/society but not in law making bodies criminals must and should not and never be/become lawmakers!
Kindly implement and enforce these recommendations of the ARC at the earliest:
(i) Confiscation of property wrongfully acquired, since this recommendation along with the recommendation of Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act 1988 have both been accepted by the Union Govt.
(ii) Disqualification of tainted candidates for elections to Parliament and State Legislatures.
(iii) Immediately appoint a Lokpal who's undiluted prosecution powers.
Sign The Petition
Continue with Google
OR
If you already have an account please sign in, otherwise register an account for free then sign the petition filling the fields below.
Email and password will be your account data, you will be able to sign other petitions after logging in.
Shoutbox
Goal
0 signatures
Goal: 50
Information
By:
Ilene Huber
In:
-
Petition target:
Hon'ble Supreme Court, Prime Minister (PM), President, Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), Election Commission of India (ECI), Chief Election Commissioners (CECs), Law Commission of Ind
Hon'ble Supreme Court, Prime Minister (PM), President, Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), Election Commission of India (ECI), Chief Election Commissioners (CECs), Law Commission of Ind
Tags
No tags
Embed Codes
direct link
link for html
link for forum without title
link for forum with title
