Dear IAC Subscribers
This is to clarify that "IAC is NOT_A party", and "NOTA is not a negative vote but a neutral vote".
As such we can and will say whatever we have to ensure our Fundamental Right to cast our vote u/a 19(1)(a) as our inalienable Freedom of Speech and Expression
The Election Commission has seriously erred in not giving full effect.to the Supreme Court's observations in the NOTA judgment of Sep. 2013 on its own. Let me explain how.
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/wp(c)No.161of2004.pdf
So, it is clear that at present the elector has the "AYES" button for a particular candidate, SC (by NOTA) has given him the "ABSTAIN" button, and IAC is to fight for the "NOES" button (ie pure negative vote or "black ball) which the MPs (elected representatives) have. (NB: It is very well established in law that an authorised representative can only exercise such power as possessed by the grantor)
Lastly, it has been communicated to me, that HRA has a few committed votes in Delhi. Considering that in HRA's view all 3 cards being forced on the electors are equally tattered, HRA has asked IAC to make it known discreetly to its subscribers in Delhi that
A) HRA (and by extension also IAC) is NOT_A party
B) In view of HRA's scientific analysis of systemic discrimination and electoral fraud against religious minority voters (such as by reserving seats for Scheduled Castes etc in constituencies where Muslims and Adi Dharmis are numerically significant), the concerned secular apolitical citizens should restore balance to ensure that minorities and disadvantaged "winnable" candidates are invariably supported. This is to ensure the secular and diverse fabric of India remains and committed votes are not wasted but are leveraged.
Sarbajit
This is to clarify that "IAC is NOT_A party", and "NOTA is not a negative vote but a neutral vote".
As such we can and will say whatever we have to ensure our Fundamental Right to cast our vote u/a 19(1)(a) as our inalienable Freedom of Speech and Expression
The Election Commission has seriously erred in not giving full effect.to the Supreme Court's observations in the NOTA judgment of Sep. 2013 on its own. Let me explain how.
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/wp(c)No.161of2004.pdf
"35) In Lily Thomas vs. Speaker, Lok Sabha, (1993) 4 SCC 234, this Court held that "voting is a formal expression of will or opinion by the person entitled to exercise the right on the subject or issue in question" and that "right to vote means right to exercise the right in favour of or against the motion or resolution. Such a right implies right to remain neutral as well".
36) In view of the same, this Court also referred to the Practice and Procedure of the Parliament for voting which provides for three buttons: viz., AYES, NOES and ABSTAIN whereby a member can abstain or refuse from expressing his opinion by casting vote in favour or against the motion. The constitutional interpretation given by this Court was based on inherent philosophy of parliamentary sovereignty.
..
..
38) The Law Commission of India, in its 170th Report relating to Reform of the Electoral Laws recommended for implementation of the concept of negative vote and also pointed out its advantages."
36) In view of the same, this Court also referred to the Practice and Procedure of the Parliament for voting which provides for three buttons: viz., AYES, NOES and ABSTAIN whereby a member can abstain or refuse from expressing his opinion by casting vote in favour or against the motion. The constitutional interpretation given by this Court was based on inherent philosophy of parliamentary sovereignty.
..
..
38) The Law Commission of India, in its 170th Report relating to Reform of the Electoral Laws recommended for implementation of the concept of negative vote and also pointed out its advantages."
So, it is clear that at present the elector has the "AYES" button for a particular candidate, SC (by NOTA) has given him the "ABSTAIN" button, and IAC is to fight for the "NOES" button (ie pure negative vote or "black ball) which the MPs (elected representatives) have. (NB: It is very well established in law that an authorised representative can only exercise such power as possessed by the grantor)
Lastly, it has been communicated to me, that HRA has a few committed votes in Delhi. Considering that in HRA's view all 3 cards being forced on the electors are equally tattered, HRA has asked IAC to make it known discreetly to its subscribers in Delhi that
A) HRA (and by extension also IAC) is NOT_A party
B) In view of HRA's scientific analysis of systemic discrimination and electoral fraud against religious minority voters (such as by reserving seats for Scheduled Castes etc in constituencies where Muslims and Adi Dharmis are numerically significant), the concerned secular apolitical citizens should restore balance to ensure that minorities and disadvantaged "winnable" candidates are invariably supported. This is to ensure the secular and diverse fabric of India remains and committed votes are not wasted but are leveraged.
Sarbajit
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.