By Rohit and Jhalak Some Rajya Sabha seats will be contested over the next year. The Presidential elections are also scheduled to be held in 2012. The recent assembly elections has implications for both these elections. The Presidential elections will depend on the strenght in the assemblies, in Lok Sabha and in Rajya Sabha (which could change over the next year). Implications for Rajya Sabha Elections The composition of Rajya Sabha may undergo some changes. A total of 12 Rajya Sabha seats are up for election in 2011. This includes 6 seats from West Bengal, 3 from Gujarat and 1 each from Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Goa. Another 65 seats, across 18 states, go for elections in early 2012. The largest chunk of these seats comes from UP(10), followed by Andhra Pradesh(6), Bihar(6) and Maharashtra(6). Since Rajya Sabha members are elected by the elected members of the Legislative Assembly of the State, a change in the composition of the assembly can affect the election outcome. We used the current assembly compositions to work out scenarios for Rajya Sabha in 2011 and 2012. There could be alliances between parties for the Rajya Sabha elections, so we have estimated a range for each grouping (Scenario I and II) for 2012. See Notes [1] and [2].
| Parties/ Coalitions | 2010 | Scenario 2011 | Scenario 2012 | |
| I | II | |||
| UPA | 89 | 94 | 95 | 97 |
| NDA | 65 | 65 | 67 | 66 |
| Left | 22 | 19 | 14 | 14 |
| BSP | 18 | 18 | 19 | 19 |
| SP | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 |
| AIADMK | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| BJD | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 |
| Other parties | 18 | 18 | 20 | 19 |
| Independent | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 |
| Nominated | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 |
| Total | 241 | 245 | 245 | 245 |
Implications for the election of the President The President is elected in accordance with the provisions of Article 54 and 55 of the Constitution. The electorate consists of the elected members of Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha and all Legislative Assemblies. Each MP/ MLA's vote has a pre-determined value based on the population they represent. The election is held in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of a single transferable vote. The winning candidate must secure at least 50% of the total value of votes polled. (For details, refer to this Election Commission document). There is no change in the Lok Sabha composition (unless there are bye-elections). Position in Legislative Assemblies After the recent round of assembly elections, the all-India MLA count adds up to:
| UPA | 1613 |
| NDA | 1106 |
| Left | 205 |
| BSP | 246 |
| AIADMK | 155 |
| BJD | 103 |
| SP | 95 |
| Others | 597 |
The above numbers can now be used to estimate the value of votes polled by each coalition. See Note [3]:
| Value of votes cast | Scenario - 1 | Scenario - 2 |
| UPA | 439,437 | 440,853 |
| NDA | 307,737 | 307,029 |
| Left | 51,646 | 51,646 |
| BSP | 77,243 | 77,243 |
| SP | 38,531 | 38,531 |
| AIADMK | 36,392 | 36,392 |
| BJD | 28,799 | 28,799 |
| Others | 119,097 | 118,389 |
| Total | 1,098,882 | 1,098,882 |
| Min. to be elected | 549,442 | 549,442 |
The UPA has the highest value of votes polled but the figure is not sufficient to get its candidate elected. Assuming that there are at most three candidates with significant support (UPA, NDA, and Left/Third Front), the winner will be the one who manages to bridge the gap with second preference votes. On this factor, the UPA backed candidate is likely to hold the edge over others. Notes: [1] At present, there are four vacant seats in Rajya Sabha (1 Maharashtra, 1 TN, 1 WB and 1 Nominated). It is assumed that all these seats are filled up in 2011. [2] Three of the 11 nominated members in the current Rajya Sabha have declared their party affiliation as INC. These have been included in the UPA count in the above analysis. For the sake of simplicity, it is assumed that members who get nominated in 2011/ 12 are not aligned to any party/ coalition. [3] The above analysis is based on the assumption that the next set of assembly elections happen after the Presidential election.
The Arms Act, 1959 governs matters related to acquisition, possession, manufacture, sale, transportation, import and export of arms and ammunition. It defines a specific class of ‘prohibited’ arms and ammunitions, restricts their use and prescribes penalties for contravention of its provisions. Section 7 of the Act forbids the manufacture, sale, and use of prohibited arms and ammunition unless it has been specially authorised by the central government.1 Section 27(3) prescribes that any contravention of Section 7 that results in the death of any person 'shall be punishable with death'.2 Section 27(3) of the Act was challenged in the Supreme Court in 2006 in State of Punjab vs. Dalbir Singh. The final verdict in the case was pronounced last week. The judgment not only affects the Act in question but may have important implications for criminal law in the country. Legislative history of Section 27 When the law was first enacted, Section 27 provided that possession of any arms or ammunition with intent to use the same for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and/ or a fine. This section was amended in 1988 to provide for enhanced punishments in the context of escalating terrorist and anti-national activities. In particular, section 27(3) was inserted to provide for mandatory death penalty. The Judgment The Supreme Court judgment says that Section 27(3) is very 'widely worded'. Any act (including use, acquisition, possession, manufacture or sale) done in contravention of Section 7 that results in death of a person will attract mandatory death penalty. Thus, even if an accidental or unintentional use results in death, a mandatory death penalty must be imposed. The bench quotes relevant sections of an earlier judgment delivered in 1983, in Mithu vs. State of Punjab. In this case, the court had looked into the constitutional validity of mandatory death sentence. The final verdict had ruled that a provision of law which deprives the Court of its discretion, and disregards the circumstances in which the offence was committed, can only be regarded as 'harsh, unjust and unfair'. The judgment goes on to say that the concept of a 'just, fair and reasonable' law has been read into the guarantees under Article 14 (Equality before law) and Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. A law that imposes an irreversible penalty such as death is 'repugnant to the concept of right and reason'. Therefore, Section 27 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959 is unconstitutional. Section 27(3) is also unconstitutional in that it deprives the judiciary from discharging its duty of judicial review by barring it from using the power of discretion in the sentencing procedure. What happens now? Under Article 13 of the Constitution, laws inconsistent with the Constitution shall be null and void. Therefore, Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 shall now stand amended. Courts shall have the discretion to impose a lesser sentence. It is noteworthy that the Home Minister had also introduced a Bill in the Lok Sabha on the 12th of December, 2011 to amend the Arms Act, 1959. The Bill seeks to remove the words ‘shall be punishable with death’ and replace these with ‘shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine’. This Bill is currently being scrutinized by the Standing Committee. Notes: 1) Section 7 of the Arms Act, 1959: “7. Prohibition of acquisition or possession, or of manufacture or sale, of prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition. No person shall -- (a) acquire, have in his possession or carry; or (b) use, manufacture, sell, transfer, convert, repair, test or prove; or (c) expose or offer for sale or transfer or have in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof; any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition unless he has been specially authorised by the Central Government in this behalf.” 2) Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959: “27(3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with death.” Sources: Arms Act, 1959; Supreme Court judgment
