It is hard go get excited with various news items about the ordinance to not disqualify MP's and MLA's immediately after conviction by lower courts.
After all it gives the convicted leaders an additional time to file an appeal and get a stay. What is another three months after it takes over 20 years to get the conviction or just 17 years in a very high profile case of missing fodder.
As in programming, we emphasize - GIGO. Why worry about when a person gets disqualified. Worry about how such a person gets into the system.
I wish I had statistics to justify my perception.
What is likelihood of the spouse or a child of such a person being elected once the seat is vacated?
Perhaps, the better way to phrase it would be that what is the likelihood of the spouse or child of the convict NOT being elected in his/her place from the same constituency?
Nothing to do with Shakespeare's Much about nothing except that all the drama around the ordinance feels like a farce.
After all it gives the convicted leaders an additional time to file an appeal and get a stay. What is another three months after it takes over 20 years to get the conviction or just 17 years in a very high profile case of missing fodder.
As in programming, we emphasize - GIGO. Why worry about when a person gets disqualified. Worry about how such a person gets into the system.
I wish I had statistics to justify my perception.
What is likelihood of the spouse or a child of such a person being elected once the seat is vacated?
Perhaps, the better way to phrase it would be that what is the likelihood of the spouse or child of the convict NOT being elected in his/her place from the same constituency?
Nothing to do with Shakespeare's Much about nothing except that all the drama around the ordinance feels like a farce.
No comments:
Post a Comment