This unprecedented disclosure requirement did not come easily or without fights. The compliant politicians did not readily provide the information. Rather it was the result of a long and hard struggle by the vibrant civil society movement in India to ensure people's right to make informed choices in elections.

The long struggle
The idea of requiring elected public officials to disclose personal information owes its origin to a novel experiment undertaken by Public Affairs Centre (PAC), Bangalore prior to the municipal elections in 1996. The experiment -- Choose the Right Councillor -- involved collecting and disseminating information about candidates contesting elections to Bangalore city corporation and its different wards. With the help of a questionnaire, candidates contesting in each ward were asked to provide information as to whether they were taxpayers and they resided in the ward from which they contested. They were also asked to give information on their criminal records, their level of awareness of civic issues, their commitments and priorities for their wards, and their past achievements. With the help of The Deccan Herald and other local newspapers and an army of volunteers, the information collected were compiled and distributed among the voters in order to help them elect the best candidates. The experiment created quite a sensation and caught the imagination of other civil society groups. Such information empowerment campaigns of voters are now carried out in hundreds of municipal wards in India.

Inspired by the experiment in Bangalore and its replication in other municipalities, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in Delhi High Court by the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) in October 1999, seeking disclosures of past criminal records and pending criminal cases against candidates contesting elections. In December 2000, the Delhi HC upheld the ADR petition and directed the Election Commission to secure these information from candidates.

Politicians fighting back
In January 2001, the NDA government and Congress party appealed to the Indian Supreme Court against this judgment on the grounds that the judiciary encroached into legislative arena. People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), ADR and Lok Satta fought against the government and Congress party on this issue.

On May 2, 2002, the Indian Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment directing the Election Commission (EC) to make mandatory for each candidate in Parliament and Assembly elections to furnish: (a) whether the candidate was convicted, acquitted or discharged of any criminal offence in the past; (b) whether the candidate was accused in any pending case of any offence in the six months prior to the months of filing nominations; (c) lists of assets (immovable, movable and bank balances, etc.) of the candidate; (d) lists of liabilities, if any, of the candidate particularly to public financial institutions and to the government; and (e) evidence of educational qualifications of the candidate.

Although members of the civil society welcomed the decision, political parties strongly opposed it. In fact, the government did not act even after the EC wrote a letter seeking the issuance of an order amending the Election Rules 1961, which prescribes the format of nomination papers for elections to legislatures. In order to give full effect to Court's directives, EC subsequently issued an order on June 28, 2002 making it mandatory for candidates to provide the above information. The order stated that furnishing of wrong or incomplete information or suppression of any material information by any candidate could result in the rejection of his/her nomination papers.

The Union Government convened an all-party conference on July 8, 2002, which unanimously rejected the EC's order. The government subsequently prepared a draft bill for electoral reforms, which was presented at another all-party conference on July 15, 2002. The bill nullified the Supreme Court and EC directives and only provided for disqualifying candidates convicted of heinous crimes by courts in two separate cases. Congress and left parties, however, rejected the proposed legislation on the ground that it would compromise people's right to information. In July 2002, PAC, Bangalore, and other leading civil society groups sent a letter to all MPs demanding the implementation of the EC directives.

The government submitted an Electoral Reform Ordinance to the President in the 1st week of August 2002. A delegation representing the National Campaign for Electoral Reforms (NCER) met with President Abul Kalam on August 16, 2002 and appealed to him not to assent to the Ordinance in order to protect citizens' fundamental right to know about the candidates' antecedents. Consequently, the President returned the Ordinance on August 23, 2002 for clarifications and reconsideration. The Cabinet, however, rejected the President's request on August 24 and resent the Ordinance to him. The President signed the Ordinance on the assurance that the government would consider his suggestions at the time of legislating the Ordinance in Parliament.

In September 2002, the civil society groups challenged the Ordinance terming it as a "constitutional monstrosity." They argued that the legislature had no power to ask the instrumentalities of the State to disobey or disregard the decisions given by the Courts, or to declare that the decisions rendered by the Courts were not binding or were of no effect.

On December 28, 2002, the government introduced the Representation of People's (Third Amendment) Act. Section 33B of the Act nullified the May 2, 2002 Supreme Court directives for disclosures.

On March 13, 2003 the Supreme Court struck down Section 33B of the Act and required the enforcement of Court's May 2, 2002 judgment and EC's notification of June 28, 2002. The Court specifically directed that the candidates disclose: (1) all their criminal records; (2) all assets and liabilities of themselves and their families; and (3) their educational qualifications. The Court further directed that the non-disclosure of the above information would be a ground for the rejection of nomination. The EC issued a revised notification on March 27 to implement the Court verdict.

On June 25, 2003, All India State Election Commissioners' (SEC) Conference in Bangalore took the decision to implement the Supreme Court judgment, requiring candidates in elections of local bodies to make similar disclosures.

It is clear that the quality of governance of a society can be no better than that of the quality of its elected representatives. The members of the Indian civil society, supported by the activism of the Indian courts, have taken giant steps to clean up their electoral process by ensuring people's right to know about the background of their elected officials. I hope we will do something similar in our country soon. Otherwise we will have no right to complain about criminalisation of our politics, which has become a favourite pastime for many.

Badiul Alam Majumdar, PhD is Global Vice President and Country Director, The Hunger Project-Bangladesh.