Prof jagdeep chhokar
-
Upload
thriddas -
Category
News & Politics
-
view
114 -
download
1
Transcript of Prof jagdeep chhokar
![Page 1: Prof jagdeep chhokar](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052316/558999bbd8b42a8e508b4706/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Political Financing and Lobbying
Coalition against Corruption (CoCo)
Bangalore, 14-15 Jan 2014
Jagdeep S. Chhokar
![Page 2: Prof jagdeep chhokar](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052316/558999bbd8b42a8e508b4706/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
About ADR
• Association for Democratic Reforms (www.adrindia.org)
• Improving governance and democracy in the country
![Page 3: Prof jagdeep chhokar](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052316/558999bbd8b42a8e508b4706/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Governance
![Page 4: Prof jagdeep chhokar](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052316/558999bbd8b42a8e508b4706/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Governance
Political Governance
![Page 5: Prof jagdeep chhokar](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052316/558999bbd8b42a8e508b4706/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Governance
Political Governance
Democracy
![Page 6: Prof jagdeep chhokar](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052316/558999bbd8b42a8e508b4706/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Governance
Political Governance
Democracy
Elections
![Page 7: Prof jagdeep chhokar](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052316/558999bbd8b42a8e508b4706/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Governance
Political Governance
Democracy
Elections
Electoral Reforms
![Page 8: Prof jagdeep chhokar](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052316/558999bbd8b42a8e508b4706/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Governance
Political Governance
Democracy
Elections
Electoral Reforms
De-criminalisation of politics
![Page 9: Prof jagdeep chhokar](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052316/558999bbd8b42a8e508b4706/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Governance
Political Governance
Democracy
Elections
Electoral Reforms
De-criminalisation of politics
Transparency in the political system
![Page 10: Prof jagdeep chhokar](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052316/558999bbd8b42a8e508b4706/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Evolution of ADR
• 1999: Public Interest Litigation (PIL): DelhiHigh Court
• 2001-2003: PILs in Supreme Court of India
• 2002-On going: Election Watch
• 2006-2008: Income Tax Return of Political Parties
• 2010-2013-??? Political Parties public authorities
• 2002-On going: Database of over 75,000 persons who have contested elections
![Page 11: Prof jagdeep chhokar](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052316/558999bbd8b42a8e508b4706/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Some recognition• NASSCOM award for ICT led Innovation by Multi-
stakeholder Partnership with Webrosoft– National Association of Software and Services Companies
– 2011(December)• mBillionth Award South Asia for 'Mobile Innovations for
Good Governance’– Digital Empowerment Foundation
– 2012 (August)• Social Impact Award, The Times of India
– 2013 (January)• Indian of the year for Public Service, CNN-IBN
– 2013 (December)
![Page 12: Prof jagdeep chhokar](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052316/558999bbd8b42a8e508b4706/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Election Financing
![Page 13: Prof jagdeep chhokar](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052316/558999bbd8b42a8e508b4706/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Ten year analysis of candidates (since 2004)
• Average assets of ALL candidates (62847): Rs. 1.37 Crores ($221,310)
• Average assets of all MPs/MLAs (8790): Rs. 3.83 Crores ($618,700) • Average assets per citizen: Rs 10 Lakhs ($15,000)• Number of Recontesting Candidates Analyzed: 4181 • Average increase in wealth of all 4181 recontesting candidates:
Rs.2.34 crores ($378,000)• Average growth in assets of the 4181 recontesting candidates: From
Rs.1.74 crores ( $281,080) to Rs.4.08 crores ($659,080)• Increase in wealth of over 200%: 1615 out of 4181 • Increase in wealth of over 500%: 684 out of 4181 • Increase wealth of over 800%: 420 out of 4181• Increase wealth of over 1000%: 317
![Page 14: Prof jagdeep chhokar](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052316/558999bbd8b42a8e508b4706/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Asset comparison of MLAs2008 2013
Karnataka 6.37 Crores ($1,029,010)
23.66 Crores ($3,822,040)
2007 2012
Gujarat 1.64 Crores ($264,930)
8.05 Crores ($1,300,397)
Punjab 3.47 Crores ($560,545)
9.92 Crores ($1,602,480)
Himachal Pradesh 1.27 Crores ($205,160)
7.45 Crores ($1,203,473)
Uttrakhand 75.02 Lakhs ($121,478)
1.85 Crores ($298,849)
Uttar Pradesh 1.13 Crores ($182,540)
3.28 Crores ($529,850)
![Page 15: Prof jagdeep chhokar](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052316/558999bbd8b42a8e508b4706/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Election Expenditure by winners/candidatesState/Lok Sabha Average expense Prescribed limit
Karnataka 2013 7.44 Lakhs ($12,020) 16 Lakhs ($25,850)
Gujarat 8.66 Lakhs ($14,000) 16 Lakhs ($25,850)
Himachal Pradesh 6.77 Lakhs ($10,940) 11 Lakhs ($17,770)
Uttar Pradesh 8.65 Lakhs ($14,000) 16 Lakhs ($25,850)
Uttarakhand 6.61 Lakhs ($10680) 11 Lakhs ($17,770)
Punjab 6.77 Lakhs ($10,940) 16 Lakhs ($25,850)
Nagaland 4.62 Lakhs ($7,460) 8 Lakhs ($13,000)
Tripura 4.56 Lakhs ($7,370) 8 Lakhs ($13,000)
Lok Sabha 2009 14.40 Lakhs ($23,260)
25 Lakhs ($40,390)
Lok Sabha 2009 (Candidates)
7.94 Lakhs ($12,826) 25 Lakhs ($40,390)
![Page 16: Prof jagdeep chhokar](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052316/558999bbd8b42a8e508b4706/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Lok Sabha 2009Election Expenditure by candidates
• Expenditure affidavits analysed: 6753• Candidates who declared expenditure above the
limit: 4 (Four)• Candidates who declared expenditure up to 90-
95% of the limit: 30• Candidates who declared expenditure up to 45-
55% of the limit (6753-34): 6719 (99.4965%)
![Page 17: Prof jagdeep chhokar](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052316/558999bbd8b42a8e508b4706/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Election Financingvs
Political Financing
![Page 18: Prof jagdeep chhokar](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052316/558999bbd8b42a8e508b4706/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Getting information of financing of political parties
• Income tax returns
• Statement of donations received
• Sources of income
![Page 19: Prof jagdeep chhokar](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052316/558999bbd8b42a8e508b4706/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Income of six national political parties (2004-05 to 2011-12)
Total income Rs 4,895.96 crores ($792 million)
% of total income
From Electoral trusts Rs 105.86 crores ($17.1 million)
2.16%
From known donors Rs 435.85 crores ($70.4 million)
8.90%
From other known sources
Rs 785.60 crores ($127 million)
16.05%
From unknown sources
Rs 3,674.50 crores ($594 million)
75.05%
![Page 20: Prof jagdeep chhokar](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052316/558999bbd8b42a8e508b4706/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
• Known donors: Details of donors as available from contribution report submitted by parties to Election Commission
• Other known sources: For example, sale of assets, membership fees, bank interest, sale of publications, party levy, etc.
• Unknown sources: Income specified in the IT Returns whose sources are unknown
![Page 21: Prof jagdeep chhokar](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052316/558999bbd8b42a8e508b4706/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Why secrecy about political funding?
• Does this question need to be asked?
• India’s RTI Act second best out of 89 countries rated by www.rti-ratings.org
• Law Commission of India’s observation
![Page 22: Prof jagdeep chhokar](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052316/558999bbd8b42a8e508b4706/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
“In the very scheme of things and as pointed out by the Supreme Court in its various decisions, the bulk of the funds contributed to political parties would come only from business houses, corporate groups and companies. Such a situation sends a clear message from the political parties to big business houses and to powerful corporations that their future financial well-being will depend upon the extent to which they extend financial support to the political party. Indeed most business houses already know where their interest lies and they make their contributions accordingly to that political party which is likely to advance their interest more. Indeed not sure of knowing which party will come to power, they very often contribute to all the major political parties. Very often these payments are made in black money” (Para 4.1.6.1) (1999)
![Page 23: Prof jagdeep chhokar](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052316/558999bbd8b42a8e508b4706/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Possible Solutions
• Financial transparency in the working of political parties
• Maintenance of accounts by political parties in a standardized format – ICAI recommendations
• Audit by CAG or ECI empanelled auditors
![Page 24: Prof jagdeep chhokar](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052316/558999bbd8b42a8e508b4706/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
THE Final Solution
• Internal democracy in the functioning of political parties by law– Already recommended by several commissions
over the years
![Page 25: Prof jagdeep chhokar](https://reader033.fdocuments.in/reader033/viewer/2022052316/558999bbd8b42a8e508b4706/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
“On the parity of the above reasoning, it must be said that if democracy and accountability constitute the core of our constitutional system, the same concepts must also apply to and bind the political parties which are integral to parliamentary democracy. It is the political parties that form the government, man the Parliament and run the governance of the country. It is therefore, necessary to introduce internal democracy, financial transparency and accountability in the working of the political parties. A political party which does not respect democratic principles in its internal working cannot be expected to respect those principles in the governance of the country. It cannot be dictatorship internally and democratic in its functioning outside” (Para 3.1.2.1).