COMMENTARY

perception was justifi ed, research was ‘Right to Recall’ Reform undertaken to record the experience of RTR where it was provided at the munici- Experience in pal levels in various states of the country (Table 1). Among the given states, Madhya K Neelima Pradesh (MP) was chosen for research on the RTR experience for three reasons. The “Right to Recall” has been he “Right to Recall” (RTR) had been One, it had the longest experience of often seen as a way to make perceived as a suitable solution RTR in the country, one that has been 6 elected representatives more Tto enhance accountability among implemented since 2000. Two, it had elected representatives, as it allows voters the most recent recall elections at the accountable to voters. However, to seek re-election of the representative time this research was conducted. And the experience of the reform in before the scheduled end of tenure of three, there were relatively recent cases local bodies in Madhya Pradesh, the incumbent. To give one example, in the state where incumbents survived where it has been in force since voter surveys have found support for the the recall and where they did not. The reform to be applied nationally in legis- RTR was introduced in MP to Sections 24 2000, has revealed how, in its lative assemblies and Parliament, with a and 47 of the acts that applied to recall present form, it could be vulnerable higher degree of support among the of the mayor of a corporation and presi- to political opportunism and urban and literate youth than others dent of a council, respectively, through a arbitrariness of process. (Sardesai 2014). To assess whether this secret ballot and a majority of more than half of the total votes in the area.7 This Table 1: Provisions for RTR at Municipal Level in direct election was initiated through a Madhya Pradesh, Section 24 of the Madhya Pradesh proposal for recall supported by three- 2000 Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 fourths of the elected council. The RTR and Section 47 of the Madhya under Section 47 came with various safe- Pradesh Municipalities Act, 19611 guards like, the recall proposal would Chhattisgarh, Section 47 (recall of President) 2007 of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palika be verifi ed by the collector and that Act, 19612 such a proposal would be initiated only Rajasthan, 2011 Section 53 of the Rajasthan after two years of the mayoral election. Municipalities Act, 20093 was amended in 2011 as the Rajasthan Following verifi cation of the signatures Municipalities (Amendment) on the recall proposal, the collector Bill, 20114 would send the proposal to the state K Neelima ([email protected]) is a Bihar, 2007 Section 17 of Bihar Municipal Act, government, which would then refer it 20075 doctoral student at the Department of Political to the State Election Commission (SEC) Science, University of Delhi. Source: Author’s compilation based on data from state election commissions. to begin the process of election on the

24 april 1, 2017 vol lIi no 13 EPW Economic & Political Weekly COMMENTARY

Figure 1: Sample of Gender-specific Ballot Paper However, he did not support the view gathered 18,815 and won the election, For Recall that the RTR should be extended to legis- defeating Usha Goyal who had received lative assemblies and argued that RTR 10,270 votes. There were also 466 NOTA should be exercised only where “executive (None of the Above) votes in this re- functions are discharged and not legisla- election for the president. tive functions.” To implement the RTR, the SEC had designed a unique ballot Recall in Harda and paper to make the recall concept more Speaking on the experience of reform, accessible to less-educated voters. The Bansal14 listed several shortcomings of recall ballot paper had two images, one RTR. First, the grounds for recall were of an empty chair and another of a chair arbitrary as there had been no charges occupied by a gender-specifi c image. The of corruption or irregularities against voters were asked if they would like the her. Second, the ballot paper of one va- president to continue in position or vacate cant chair and one chair occupied by an the chair (Figure 1). image had confused the voters. Third, On the thinking behind the ballot the question arose on whether the presi- paper, A V Singh,11 the Election Commis- dent of the council was to be considered sioner from 2006 to 2010, said that it a councillor or not. Fourth, there was was designed to signify the recall with political tension between the president symbols and not words. “It could not be and the councillors, who belonged to a a ‘yes or no’ question. We had to consider different political party, which led to Source: SEC, MP. the limitation of education and the limit- strife and facilitated the recall proposal. ation of understanding,” he said. The Fifth, Bansal argued that the president recall question.8 The process was similar recall ballot paper, signifi cantly, did not should have been given a chance to in Chhattisgarh.9 contain the names of the possible candi- counter the reasons for the no-confi - dates who might replace the incumbent dence motion before the recall was pro- Reform Experience in case the recall succeeded. The choice posed. Sixth, new voters who had not There have been mixed impressions of the next candidate was done in a participated in the municipal elections about the impact of the reform in MP, separate election held after a successful in 2011 when Bansal was elected, had (Ghatwai 2011) where the fi rst recall recall election. now voted in the recall elections in 2015. election was held in 2001 in Anuppur in The Harda and Chhanera–New Harsud “It must be ensured that only those who Shahadol district. The most recent recall municipal recalls were chosen for study voted for a candidate earlier, partici- elections were held in 2015 against the as the recall in Harda had succeeded pated in the recall election,” she said. Congress-backed Nagar Palika Parishad and the recall in Chhanera–New Harsud Seventh, the recall campaign was targeted president in Harda district, and the inde- had failed. The recall elections in both against her, and all the councillors were pendent president of Nagar Parishad in places were held on 31 January 2015 and against her. “Twenty-three councillors, Chhanera–New Harsud in dis- counting was done on 4 February 2015. campaigning in their own wards, could trict. While Harda had seen 59.7% voting, While the president of the Harda Muni- not have been matched single-handedly Chhanera–New Harsud had witnessed cipal Council or Nagar Palika Parishad,12 by me,” she explained. She had taken 57.36%, according to media reports (Times Sangeeta Bansal was recalled from her the matter to the high court but lost the of India 2015). The recall election for post, the president of the Municipal Coun- legal challenge. both candidates was held on 4 February cil or Nagar Parishad13 of Chhanera–New 2015, and while the former was removed Harsud, Kamalkant Bhardwaj retained Permission for Reproduction of from the post, the latter had retained it. his post by defeating the recall move. Articles Published in EPW Since 2000, there had been 33 recall In Harda, while the municipal elections elections held at the municipal level in in 2012 had taken place through the No article published in EPW or part thereof the state, of which the incumbent was electronic voting machines, the recall should be reproduced in any form without recalled in 17 instances and not recalled election was held through the paper prior permission of the author(s). in 16 instances. The present Election ballot and ballot boxes. Of the total A soft/hard copy of the author(s)’s approval Commissioner of the SEC since 2013, 22,346 valid votes, the recall of Bansal should be sent to EPW. R Parasuram10 considered this a low num- was supported by 13,044 and those ber as there were a large number of mu- against the recall were 9,302. The recall In cases where the email address of the nicipalities in the state, and said that the process was completed with the elec- author has not been published along RTR encouraged elected representatives tion of a new president to the municipal with the articles, EPW can be contacted from different parties to work together council on 16 July 2015. Of the total for help. for development of their constituencies. valid votes of 29,085, Sadhana Jain

Economic & Political Weekly EPW april 1, 2017 vol lIi no 13 25 COMMENTARY In Channera–New Harsud, the district the chair was empty,” he stated. Sixth, in its present form and could be forced collector, Khandwa, was the returning the campaign before the recall election upon an electorate. offi cer for the election and issued the was dominated by the councillors united fi nal results, which showed that of the against him. He believed that he sur- NOTES total valid votes (8,463) polled, 5,632 vived the recall mainly because of his 1 The Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation votes were polled against the recall and own contribution to his constituency. Act, 1956 and the Madhya Pradesh Municipali- ty Act, 1961 (Amendment of 1999), Madhya 2,831 were polled in favour. A majority Despite the complaints, Bhardwaj felt Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994, of voters in all the 15 polling stations had the RTR was an important reform and it Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission. 2 The Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, voted in favour of Bhardwaj retaining should be extended to the members of 1956 and the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palika Act, the post. In the municipal election in the assembly and Parliament as well. 1961 (Gazette notifi cation of 2007), State Elec- tion Commission, Chhattisgarh, viewed on 30 2012, he had polled 3,210 votes and his Speaking on the defeat of his recall pro- January 2017, https://www.legalcrystal.com/ nearest opponent had polled 2,998 votes. posal, Mukesh Verma,16 the councillor act/134620/the-chhattisgarh-municipalities- BJP act-1961-complete-act. The margin of victory for Bhardwaj in affi liated with the , said the message 3 The Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 2012 had been 212 votes, while in the was not conveyed well to the voters and (Rajasthan) s53, viewed on 29 January 2016, recall election in 2015, the margin was that the negative campaign during the http://www.lsg.urban.rajasthan.gov.in/conte- nt/dam/raj/udh/lsgs/lsg-jaipur/pdf/Oth e r %- 2,801. Clearly, Bhardwaj had succeeded election had failed. 20Pdf/37%20Rajasthan_Municipal_Act-2009.pdf. in not only consolidating his supporters 4 The Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2011 (Raja s- than) s53, viewed on 29 January 2016, http:// but also winning over supporters of Conclusions rajassembly.nic.in/BillsPdf/Bill16-2011.pdf. other contenders who had been in the It was found that both losing and win- 5 The Bihar Municipal Bill, 2007 (Bihar) s17, viewed on 29 January 2016, http://urban.bih. fray in 2012. ning candidates in recent recall elec- nic.in/Acts/AR-01-29-03-2007.pdf. Speaking about the reform experience, tions in MP shared similar views on the 6 The Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 Bhardwaj15 listed the problems he had reform. First, the grounds for recall were (MP) s47. 7 The Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation noticed in the recall elections. First, the arbitrary. Second, the signature verifi ca- Act, 1956 and the Madhya Pradesh Municipality recall was facilitated because of a sharply tion procedure by the district collector Act, 1961. divided house where, of the 15 members was unsatisfactory. Third, the ballot pa- 8 The Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. 9 The Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, in the council, eight were affi liated with per for recall elections was confusing to 1956 (Chhattisgarh) s24 and the Chhattisgarh the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), three voters. Fourth, new voters who partici- Municipality Act, 1961 (Chhattisgarh) s47. 10 R Parasuram, personal interview, 2 November with the Congress and others were non- pated in recall elections had not voted in 2015, 9.16 am, State Election Offi ce, Bhopal. affi liated independents. Bhardwaj won the general elections. Fifth, the recall 11 A V Singh, personal interview, 2 November 2015, the post of the president as an independ- election campaign was targeted by all 12.05 pm, Bhopal. 12 According to SEC, MP, nagar nigam parishad is ent, the reason both parties had been councillors against one president. The a municipal council elected by a population of ranged against him. Second, the recall losing candidate in Harda had moved about 10 lakh population or more, nagar palika parishad by population of over one lakh, while proposal against Bhardwaj was signed the Jabalpur High Court to challenge the a Nagar Parishad by 50,000 or less population. by 12 of the 15 councillors, and was sub- recall election, terming it “bad in law’’ 13 Same as note 12. 14 Sangeeta Bansal, personal interview, 3 Novem- mitted to the district collector on 23 July and that the state government’s actions ber 2015, 2.47 pm, Harda. 2014. “They signed the affi davit that were “illegal” (Sangeeta Bansal v State of 15 Kamalkant Bhardwaj, personal interview, 4 Nov- they did not trust me,” he said, and ex- Madhya Pradesh and Others 2014: 14819). ember 2015, 11.43 am, Nagar Parishad Chhannera– New Harsud. plained that there had been no investi- The court had dismissed her claim stating 16 Mukesh Verma, personal interview, 4 November gation or evidence to support this view. that there had been no error in law. The 2015, 12.45 pm, Nagar Parishad Chhannera– New Harsud. Third, he felt that it was diffi cult for winning candidate in Harsud evaluated the collector to verify whether or not the his experience to state that the recall elec- REFERENCES councillors had signed on the recall tion against him had been unnecessary. proposal under pressure. “The collector To sum up, the experience with RTR in Ghatwai, Milind (2011): “Madhya Pradesh a Lab for 10 Years, with Mixed Results,” Indian Express, should conduct secret voting to fi nd out MP revealed functional problems with 31 August, accessed on 28 January 2016, http:// whether the councillors meant their the reform, including at the point of archive.indianexpress.com/news/madhya-p r- a desh-a-lab-for-10-yrs-with-mixed-results/ 83- support from their heart,” Bhardwaj inception of the recall proposal and at 9 660/. suggested. Fourth, he objected to the fact the point of culmination of the ballot. At Sardesai, Shreyas (2014): “Chapter 5: Issues of Electoral Reforms,” Indian Youth and Electoral that he was not asked for any explanation. the inception, the political motivation Politics: An Emerging Engagement, Sanjay “I should have been given a chance to for recall could be neutralised if the Kumar (ed), Sage Publications, pp 79–113. defend myself against the complaints proposal was moved by the voters them- Sangeeta Bansal v State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, W P No 14819/2014, accessed on 3 Feb- raised.’’ Fifth, Bhardwaj found the sym- selves seeking recall elections and not ruary 2016, http://www.mphc.in/upload/ja- bols of the vacant and the fi lled chair on through a no-confi dence motion by balpur/MPHCJB/2014/WP/14819/WP_ 14819_ 2014_FinalOrder_20-Dec-2014.pdf. the ballot paper “confusing” as people councillors. At the culmination point, Times of India (2015): “61.26% Get Inked in Civic were used to voting for party symbols. the ballot could be redesigned in a way Polls Phase III,” 1 February, accessed on 28 Jan- uary 2015, http://timesofi ndia.indiatimes.com “There was an the incident when a voter in which voters are not confused. As dis- /city/bhopal/61-26-get-inked-in-civic-polls- asked who she should vote for because cussed, the RTR is not a suitable reform phase-III/articleshow/46084093.cms.

26 april 1, 2017 vol lIi no 13 EPW Economic & Political Weekly