People's Democracy

Text Of Letter To EC

The following is the text of the letter written by CPI(M) secretariat member and former MP, Nilotpal Basu to K F Wilfred, secretary to Election Commission of India on June 2, 2006

I WOULD like to thank you for your reply dated May 31, 2006 to my earlier letter dated May 14, 2006. I am happy to have received all the copies of the communication between Election Commission and the petitioner Mukul Ray in connection with the reference to you under Article 103 (2) of the Constitution by the hon’ble president of India.

The letter issued by you on May 3, 2006 to Mukul Ray stated “You are again called upon to furnish, by May 24, 2006, in respect of all ten MPs who have been alleged to be holding offices of profit under the government within the meaning of Article 102(1) (a) of the Constitution. If you fail to furnish the required information/documents by the aforesaid date, it will be presumed that you have nothing further to furnish in support of your contention.” This, in fact, was the second extension for furnishing such details to Mukul Ray wherein he was asked to submit the aforesaid material by April 17, 2006. However, your letter to me dated May 31, 2006 – a full week after the deadline that you had set to Mukul Ray for furnishing details, i.e., May 24, 2006 – whether you have received any further information from him between April 15, 2006 and May 24, 2006.  Your action, I am constrained to point out, is less than transparent. 

But the most shocking part of your response is the assertion, “It may be noted that in this process of obtaining specific information from Mukul Roy, you or any of the other MPs mentioned in the petition, have not been put to any inconvenience as no notice has been issued to you or any of the others” (underline mine).  I do not know what is your perception of inconvenience. Even though, as I have pointed out in my earlier letter dated May 14, 2006 about Ray’s complaint that, “Significantly, as appears from the alleged complaint, there is not even an iota of material or particulars far less evidence, even prima facie, in support of the reckless allegations”, I would not have been put to any inconvenience had the Commission given me or any of my Party colleagues any notice. Because, that could have given us an opportunity to shred into pieces the completely malicious and baseless nature of the complaint. But, what the EC has done is worse. Even though it has admitted in its letter issued to Mukul Ray on both March 24, 2006 and May 3, 2006 that his complaint does not contain any iota of information which could merit consideration, still the Commission has put the name of me and my colleagues on its website which has facilitated a media trial to the effect that we are holding “offices of profit” and unilaterally pronouncing us guilty. I am appending herewith a sample press report to this effect.  I am constrained to point out that this is a course which is biased and not expected of a constitutional authority.  I do not know whether you are sensitive to public honour, or, not.  But, we are. 

Given the fact that, few photocopies of the pages of  `Who is Who’ of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha did not quench your quest for truth since you are to report to the hon’ble president. And, you have not indicated any time frame for collecting requisite information. I, urge you and the Commission to close this exercise which has no factual basis forthwith and close the case.