You are on page 1of 45

LIST OF DATES & EVENTS DATES EVENTS

12.01.1994: In 1994 a non-political Association in the name of “National Foundation for Education and Research” (NAFER in short) was formed and registered under Society Registration Act, 1860 at Allahabad.

23.03.2003: A wing of NAFER named “Voters Party” was formed as a non-political Association in 2003 at Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. The aims and objectives of Voters Party was to educate the Voters of India for their Fundamental and Democratically Right. Since “Voters Party” became an organization, evolving very competent system of Education but due to need of approval of Parliament and State Assemblies. The system is still waiting for Legal Rectification.

NAFER recommended the Union Government to make uniformity between the syllabus of Universities and various examining bodies, who runs the various competitive examination.

NAFER also recommended a new Finance Circulatory System to educate the people, qualitatively and quantitatively. NAFER also given the new system of certification and illegally assessment.

2007: Under Rule 168 of Rules and Procedure of Conduct of Business of Lok Sabha, 112 MPs of Lok Sabha had filed a petition to the Hon’ble Speaker of Lok Sabha and requested to Act in favour of prayer as made in the said petition.

2008: The similar petition was also filed by 250 members of Rajya Sabha before the Hon’ble Vice President of India / Hon’ble Chairman of Rajya Sabha.

Both the petitioners are still under consideration by various standing committee of the Parliament in the same year 33 MPs of Lok Sabha also gave notice under Rule 193 of Rules and Procedure of Conduct of Business of Lok Sabha to the speaker and demanded detail on those issue.

6.5.2008:

The debate on demand of said 33 MPs was assured by the Hon’ble Speaker but one day before on 5.5.2008 the Session of Lok Sabha was san de and the debate was derailed.

The said issue was not taken for debate in the next session of the Lok Sabha despite all the efforts of MPs.

In such circumstances inculcated the mistress among the leadership of big political parties and the Members of the

FEFM and Voters Pension Party concluded to contest direct Elections and submit their findings before the Electorate.

It was also decided that the name of Voters Pension Party should be amended.

…..: That the name of Voters Pension Party was therefore changed as “VOTERS PARTY” in December 2008. The manifesto of

the Party was declared and some followers of the Voters Party contested Lok Sabha Election in April 2009. The

Experiences came that all the contestants were treated as Independent Candidates by the Election Commission of India.

This event of Parliament and the behavior of Core leaders of big Political Parties avoid the members who were working since last 10 years for the political reforms and for Parliamentary approval of Fundamental Economical Right of the Voters. Members therefore reached in the conclusion that the wide separate Poverty is not the output of mental and physical weakness of the poor people but the poor people are reserved to work against nominal earning just for their bread and butter which is nothing but slavery. practice is stringently maintained by Such

(various) Laws, Such

traditions and assumption of the Governance.

superstitions could never be able to eliminate even after

1000 years. It is also concluded by the members that a big part of lower level cadre of about every big political parties including MPs and M.L.As are ready to favour the findings of the NAFER, but the core leaders of the big parties are not ready to even listen and talk on the issue of Political reforms. Neither they are ready for discuss on this issue within their party nor they are ready to permit there MPs and MLAs for debate on the floor of the Parliament. Members of the Association were bound to form a new Political Party at this stage, when all the ways are looked closed.

October 2009:

The Election Commission asked whether the Voters Party is registered body or not. The petitioner replied that “Voters Party was functioning under social organization named NAFER, which is a Registered Society. The petitioner expected by the Commission that the Commission will not register the said name, if the Voters Party is proved to be a registered body.

13.12.2009: That some members of the NAFER and FEFM and Voters Party therefore dissolved the running Voters Party, formally known as Voters Pension Party on 13.12.2009 and constructed a draft a competent Constitution of a new Political Party and also wanted to register the said Party with Election Commission of India.

The said New Committee therefore, drafted the New Constitution of the New Political Party and applied before Election Commission of India on 1.1.2010 the Committee also decided that the name of the New Political Party must be the same as “Voters Party” to avoid any confusion amongst its members followers and supporters who were already working and supporting the issue of Political Reforms under the banner of non-political organization and Voters Pension Party as well as Voters Party.

13.03.2010: An objection was filed by Election Commission of India for not registering VOTERS PARTY in the name of anybody also except the petitioner as the petitioner are to know that someone has applied for Registration of Political Party in the name of “Voters Party” with a malafide intention of

using the reputation, goodwill and public support of the petitioner Organization as well as misuse the name of Voter’s Party. blackmailing. In such case the petitioner can be The petitioner also annexed supporting

documents regarding existence and activities of Voters Party for the period of last several years.

The

petitioner

organization

also

realized

that

the

Association of “Voters Party” shall be registered as a

Political Party with the Election Commission of India to protect the name, “Voters Party” and its ideologies from misusing by others.

That NEFAR therefore dissolved its Political Education Wing named “Voters Party” and suggested those members to form a Political Party and get it registered with the Election Commission of India. The name of said Political Party anonymously selected as “Voters Party”. Voters Party became a Political Party independently. Since

That the petitioner applied for registration of said political party named “Voters Party” duly annexed the required documents like Voter’s Card and affidavits of 100 members of different States along with its Constitution and fees as per section.

That Election Commission of India raised objection to register “Voters Party” will this misconception that the party has already been existing for the period of more than 30 days hence it can not be registered with the commission as a Political Party under Rule.

The Election ought to have consider that the Constitution of “Voters Party” was formed on 1.1.2010, which was clearly mentioned and annexed with the application for Registration

of “Voters Party” prior to 1.1.2010 it is a social organization working and functioning as a wing of a Registered Society named NAFER. There was no independent constitution.

[ABOVE LIST OF DATED NOT YET CORRECTED]

MAKE IT FINAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.__________OF 2011 In the matter of: VOTERS PARTY Through: Secretary General, Sh. Asit Kumar Roy 289, Patiala House, New Delhi – 110001. …. VERSUS 1. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA Through its Secretary Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi. 2. VOTERS PARTY [Regd.] Through Its Gen. Secretary ………………………… ………………………………..

PETITIONER

….

RESPONDENTS

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN FOR ISSUE OF A WRIT, ORDER[S], DIRECTION[S] THE NATURE OF TO MANDAMUS, REGISTER (4) DIRECTING THE THE RESPONDENT UNDER SUB PETITIONERS 29A OF

ORGANISATION “VOTERS PARTY” AS A POLITICAL PARTY SECTION SECTION REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1951 AND FOR A DIRECTION, ORDER OR WRIT OD MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATION OF SO CALLED “VOTERS PARTY” WHICH IS ALREADY REGISTERED IN FAVOUR OF A BOGUS ORGANISATION, [RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN] AND/OR

FOR A DIRECTION, ORDER OR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO REMOVE THE PROVISION THAT AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF A POLITICAL PARTY SHOULD BE MADE WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 30 DAYS NEXT FOLLOWING FROM THE DATE OF FORMATION OF THE SAID PARTY. AND/OR ANY FURTHER ORDER[S] DIRECTION[S] IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER WHICH THIS HON’BLE COURT DIM FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1.

That the Petitioner, the original organization, applied for registration of “Voters Party” as a political Party before the Respondent No.1, Election Commission of India, which was later on rejected with the ground that the Petitioner had not applied for registration within the time of 30 days from the date of its foundation. During correspondence, the Petitioner came to know that the name “Voters Party” was registered in favour of Respondent No.2, a new and bogus organization. Therefore, by the way of this petition the petitioner is challenging the letter of dtd. the respondent vides No. the

56/34/2010/PPS-I/517

22.07.2010

whereby

respondent has refused to register the petitioner as a political party. The effective part of the said letter is to read as under:

“……………you have claimed that your party was a non-political association and you have formed it as Political party on 01.01.2010. You have further stated that many candidates contested the election with the name of (Voters Party), the wing of NEFAR and that since it was not a political party, these candidates were treated as independent. Your statement is still contradictory as on one side you are claiming that the party was formed on 01.01.2010 and on the other hand you stated that many candidates contested the election under this name, prior to formation of this party. It is evident from above that your party was not formed on 01.01.2010 but on some earlier date. Since your application is not make within a period of 30 days next following the date of formation. Your application is rightly treated as time barred”.

2.

That the Petitioner also challenged the action, omission and commission of the Respondent No.1 whereby the Respondent No.1 illegally registered “Voters Party” in favour of Respondent No.2, a bogus organization, despite several objections of the Petitioner and knowingly that the petitioner is the original, old and parent organization of the “Voters Party”.

HISTORY OF VOTERS PARTY

3.

That on 12.01.1994 a non-political Association in the name of National Foundation for Education and Research (NAFER in short) was formed under the leadership of one Bharat Gandhi and registered under Society Registration Act 1860 at Allahabad. Copy of Registration Certificate is annexed herewith as

ANNEXURE-“P-1” page -

4.

That on 23.03.2003 “Voters Pension Party” was formed as a nonpolitical Association in 2003 under the leadership of Bharat Gandhi at Meerut by Committee of aforementioned organization, NAFER. The Aim and Objects of “Voters Pension Party” was to educate the Voters of India for their Fundamental and

Democratically Right. This organization evolved very competent system of Education but due to need of approval of Parliament and State Assemblies. The system is still waiting for Legal

Rectification. This organization [Voters Pension Party of NAFER] recommended the Union Government to make uniformity between the syllabus of Universities and various examining bodies, who runs the various competitive examination. This organization [Voters Pension Party of NAFER] also recommended a new Finance Circulatory System to educate the people, qualitatively and quantitatively. This organization [Voters Pension Party of

NAFER] also given the new system of certification and illegally assessment. Another main issue of Voters Pension Party was to provide Pension to Voters of India [every citizen of India], which is called

“Votership”. Education can not be provided to the poor people until they have food to survive. This is an economical rights from the Government to each and every citizen. In is important to mention herein the concept of “Votership”. Hundreds of

movements, activities were going on under the leadership of Mr. Bharat Gandhi for each and every citizen with the following aims and objectives:

Concept of Votership (Main Points)
A. That,

Votership

is

a

newly

coined

word

like

scholarship to denote a part of GDP and a part of per capita income in form of cash to be received regularly by every voter as his or her birthright.
B. That,

petitioners

define

Votership

(in

Hindi

Matadatavritti) as a part of per capita production and as a part of per capita income of Union of India, to be received regularly in form of cash by each and every voter who is enrolled on electoral roll prepared by Election Commission of India for the elections of Lok Sabha, by ATM cash card or by any other similar transparent means, as their share in gross national inherited wealth and in the collective wealth produced by collective enterprise of voters, as a mechanism• to enhance the dignity of work of individual in place of the dignity of birth status; • to compensate citizens who are suffering from the world consumers, world traders and from the policies of World Trade Organization, WTO;

• to create fifth pillar in the building of democracy adopting the new structure of power and of laws based on the principles of economic democracy and vertical separation of power; • to provide opportunity for full exposure of inherent shape, size and nature of and spiritual strength of individual; • to connect each and every voter with the level of prosperity of the nation; • to make fundamental right of all the voters- the social security, the economic human right, the right to live with dignity and the share in average collective property. C. That, this petition submits conception of third society and full development of inherent physical, mental

category of property termed as “collective property” besides the prevalent notions in economic system of private property and public property and deems thereon the ownership of voters. It is proposed by the petitioners that this property should be regularly distributed to each and every voter in form of cash through their bank accounts. D. That, it is experienced that only poor section (below than average income) of society take active part in the elections with interest. It is apparent that this In fact the Minister. section plays more than 80% role in constituting the parliament by voting in the elections. society. Parliament produces Prime parliament is mainly constituted by this section of the Ministries and many institutions including Reserve

Bank of India are created by the Prime Minister. RBI produces currency notes and regulates banking network. These all institutions evolve such a politicoeconomic system by which big capital attracts smaller capital like a magnet. This system increases trench between rich and poor. existence, the fast capital It is proved by the formation and analysis that if these institutions were not being in concentration of capital in richer section of society was not possible. Hence, it could not be denied that there is a big role of parliament in private earning of rich people. The share of parliament in the private earning is neither recognized nor calculated so far. Petitioners pray by this petition to recognize this share and return back to voters who are mainly responsible to constitute the parliament. In fact this share of voter is termed “Votership” in this petition and gross domestic share of parliament in private earning is termed “collective income” of the country. E. That this petition prays for distribution to all voters in a transparent manner, the collective wealth of the country by means of A.T.M. cash card relating to their respective accounts opened by the state in the Reserve Bank of India. F. That, this petition proposes unequal distribution of the manual share and proposes equal distribution of the share of machines in the GDP among citizens on the basis of values of capitalism and values of communism respectively.

G. That, this petition does not make distinction between the voters on the basis of richness and poverty with a view to minimize the possibilities of corruption in distribution of collective wealth and so petition proposes distribution of Votership to all voters not only to the poor. But such distinction is made on the basis of richness and poverty on account of different capacities in payment of taxes for Votership. So that justice is done and rationality could take place. H. That, this petition deems it necessary for the purpose of distributive justice, that every year in Economic Survey of India it should be published as to what percentage is the share of men and of machines in GDP. I. That, this petition demands that out of collective property of the union, the Union Government make available to each voter his respective share; so that in the present age of globalization, common world market and uncontrolled unemployment each workman may get opportunity to bargain about his individual labor. So that every workman becomes free from the compulsion to reduce cost of his labor out of being blackmailed by hunger. And so that it may become possible for rate of labor to be raised to such a level that every workman gets his share out of the prosperity of the country and every citizen get connected with the level of economic wealth of the country.

J. That, this petition is submitted under various rules of chapter -10 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States by not only one or two but about 23 members of Council of States. Thus it is extra ordinary and non-traditional petition, in special context of the subject matter. K. That, for controlling the pain by the of economic government

discrimination

perpetuated

among the citizens on basis of birth and same is increasing day by day in the current age of common world market; i.e. globalization of market; recognizing right to get Votership has become indispensable to safeguard the lives of voters. L. That, this petition believes that developments are only means to solve the problems of humanity. Petition also believes that a portion of taxes should reach each and every adult citizen who is object of the developmental activities. This petition proposes Votership to all voters as a means to attain the objective to share in the fruits of development. M. That, the petitioners do not assume Votership as the only means of social security or poverty eradication. In fact the basic objective of Votership is to evolve a mechanism to link every adult citizen with the level of prosperity of the country. This objective could not be achieved by any of the present programs and laws like National Employment Guarantee Schemes and other schemes related to poverty elimination and unemployment. These schemes will not be able to

transform the present status of workmen from domestic oxen or from domestic servant or from reserved economic slaves for hard work to the status of domestic citizen in real scene. The wages determined by the market rates and by the Minimum Wages Act could not provide the feeling of economic freedom among the workmen. Till the poor workmen are not free economically the expectation of a civilized citizen from him is meaningless. N. That dearness increases for all citizens but the employees of govt. administration and of permanent workers of organized sector only receive dearness allowance, therefore dearness is source of additional income for some citizens but for rest of people it is like a theft or pick pocketing. Payment of Votership by adding dearness allowance will be an opportunity to the government to compensate loss to the citizens and it will do the financial justice to the suffering citizens. O. That, the petitioners are submitting this petition before Council of States with the assumption that on the account of GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and establishment of WTO in 1995; the authority of union govt. for regulating market, has become so weak that it is no longer capable of promoting and protecting the small scale industries and making market available for sale of their goods. On account of this inability, it is no more possible for government to make available jobs even to the one forth of the people seeking jobs. Hence, in the

present age of anarchic world economic order which has gone beyond the control of the country level governments, the petitioners have concluded that purchasing power could be reached to the citizens only by providing Votership, not by the means of remuneration for work. P. That, on account of worldwide common market and of continuation of fragmented state of nation-states an imbalance between market forces and state forces has been occurred. This crisis is resulting into paralysis of the state. Contemporary state can think of controlling damage created by the market but it can do nothing. Through this petition an appeal is For this made to the parliament of India to come forward to put an end to this situation of imbalance. purpose the petitioners are requesting the Council of States to make necessary recommendations to the govt. to initiate actions for GAPP agreement (Global Agreement on Poverty and Peace) for establishment of Super-national common citizenship, common legislature, common administration, and common governing system to counter the damages of the common world market. Q. That, the said Global Agreement on Poverty and Peace (GAPP) has also been considered to be necessary on account of ‘Transnational Allowance’ which could be added along with Votership amount. So that the citizens capable of meeting foreign needs of the domestic citizens of country could develop fraternal relation to help in decreasing the present tension on the border of the country.

R. That economic justice by adopting the principles of distributing means of production is only possible in an autonomous international economy laws but after to 1995 World when Trade related

Organization and other international treaties took place the economy especially market has been converted into the common market of the whole world. Due to these new situations contemporary economy production is not has an autonomous irrelevant. economy Since and the therefore principle of the distributing means of become petitioner are well aware with the international laws therefore, they are demanding direct distribution of production itself through votership rather than distributing the means of production. S. That, the children of all doctors, engineers, IAS, PCS, MP, and MLA does not get power of parents in succession. While by laws of inheritance etc, made by British Parliament and perpetuated by Indian parliament, life earning in billions of rupees and economic authority is got by children of billionaires. On account of such legal provisions every person gets inspiration that it is better to be a creator of money rather than remaining in the office for lifetime honest and doing good work. As every person knows that after his death only his earning of life will be transferred to the next generation, therefore to most of the people it does not appear to be wrong to accumulate wealth by corrupt methods and immoral acts.

T. That the present governmental system promotes and encourages corruption through different rules. In this manner the parliament gives children of rich a reservation of richness and poverty gets reserved for children of poor persons. The conclusion of the petitioners is that the regular amount of Votership may be only partially could save the children of poor from torture of poverty and economic discrimination. Votership may be an entail opportunity to parliament to get panacea for its mistake and make available an opportunity to compensate harmed party.
U. That, in the absence of any procedure regarding

political financing the economically lower segment of society neither gets share in economic prosperity of the country nor gets share in the political power. Therefore, allegations of economic exploitation have been normally made against those nation states which have adopted democracy in present form. V. That, for the purpose of democratic political financing petitioners proposes that every contestant of Lok Sabha election will get money in pro-portion to votes obtained by him. If we assume the amount of votership as rupees 1750 per mouth (the fifty percent of per voter average domestic income) a constant who obtained 1000 votes and lost election may get rupees 1750000 annual during whole period of current legislature. This money should come from the one month share from the votership of the voters. In this manner a scientific economic system will evolve

for the benefit of those people who work for society and for the state and economically lower strata of every communities could get representation in political power. W. That votership will also enable those talented Such participation will

people of economically lower section of society to share the political power. and of the parliament. X. That It is experienced that the public representatives are responsible in real sense to the contributors of money rather than the votes. In view of this situation if government will bear the expenses of the elections of only recognized parties then the responsibility of public representatives will shift towards the government rather than the weaker section of society. In this way the present form of democracy would not get rid of the allegations of economic exploitation of majority. Y. That, in case India adopts the proposal of Votership, and then it will become a source of inspiration for the rest of entire world to follow the same steps. Z. That, the petitioners have noticed that the investors made most investments in lands around cities and purchased them deeming to be most profitable investment and evicted farmers from these lands. In hope of prices to rise of such land and properties are kept idle. Such property is neither used by owner for promote the quality of decisions of the government

production nor any body else is allowed to do so. This is causing negative effect on production of grains and country is facing grave economic loss. In view of such a situation in order to put a stop to it the petitioners are submitting such a system of tax on property through this petition, so that the purchasers of the lands around cities get forced into use of these lands and if they do not do so then their properties automatically get transferred into the hands of productive users of their properties. AA. That for the maximum possible use of assets for

production and for collecting funds for votership, petitioners are proposing a new mechanism of evaluation of properties and a new policy of property tax. Petitioners suggest government for making compulsory to declare the market prices of private property by the owners on the basis of their self assessment. properties the To avoid under assessment of the petitioners wish to suggest the

compulsory clause in the affidavit that the owner is bound to transfer right of ownership to that fellow who will be ready to pay 20% extra money against the declared property. It is very clear that this formula of assessment will automatically declare the gross domestic private property, which is must for the better economic planning of the country. This mechanism will automatically transfer the properties in the hands of most capable productive users. The property tax for Votership fund should be imposed only on upper strata of society at the similar interest rates of RBI. This policy of taxation will be more

judicious, more acceptable, more transparent and more effective to collect the huge funds required for Votership. BB. That, the second source of income for the fund

of votership will be existing budget on defferent schemes of social welfare. Petitioners believe that if the citizen will have right to create organization and establish private company and the law regarding economic disparities and inheritance law in existence. Till then no effective restriction could placed over corruption. social On the basis of this analysis the which is today disbursed by suggestion of the petitioners is that the funds of welfare, government on administrative institutions, out of that amount share of one person could be added with amount of Votership and sent directly to the personal account of needy citizens regularly by adopting appropriate method. CC. That, the third source of income for the fund of

votership will come from the international agencies. On account of MDG i.e., “Millennium Development Goal” like international agreements by which foreign and international foreign agencies want to give financial help to poor citizens of world along with India but start avoiding from their promises on seeing corruption prevalent in the administration of the country. They all will have no excuse for such refusal after opening of bank accounts of all citizens for Votership because such agreement will be able to send help amounts to the private bank accounts of

poor

citizens

directly

of

their

share

without

involvement of local governmental administration. DD. That, prima-facie it appears that the regular

amount received by the voters will make them idle and this will decrease the volume of production. It is established fact and it is the rule of nature that 3% of people of society do not like to sale their labor in market. Keeping in view those 3% people a presumption gets fortified that rest of 97% are also such by nature. The human being does not survive only for the sake of the satisfaction of the hunger of the stomach. It is fact that the hunger of respect and competition are also basic component of personality of human being. This fact is accepted by many Actually, the regular making them idle. classical economists too. of the people rather than

income of Votership will enthuse the mental working Consequently the beneficiary of Votership will tend to become more productive.
EE. That, there are 8 classes in human society classified

on the basis of 8 blood Groups. It is concluded by the petitioners that there are in existence of 8 classes of mentality also which are by product and influenced by above 8 Blood Groups. The AB+ and AB- class of society have genetic basis of centripetal nature for the purchasing power toward themselves and O+ and O- class centrifuges the purchasing power towards the each and every citizens. Surprisingly, it is observed by the petitioners that among the active supporters of the proposal of Votership, 80% people

belong to O+ Blood Group. It proves that there is a biological basis of ideology thinking.
FF. That it is apparent that the logic of opponents of the

proposal of the Votership is neither arguments supported by the economics nor supported by the psychology nor born by the national interest or public interest. In fact argument of opponents is produced by the ideological influences of AB+ and AB- Blood Groups and by the selfishness. In fact such arguments are based on massive ignorance. GG. That Indian economy will get rid from the This act of India will inspire other

recession just after implementing the proposal of Votership. countries of the world to adopt this proposal. It will save the whole world from recession and from the growth of situations of third world war. HH. That rent of property demanded by the landlord cannot be deemed to be a bribe. This act of landlord cannot be deemed as improper act, or an act inspired by his greed. of the country. II. That after a decade long deliberations with many economists the petitioners have reached to the conclusion that some of them are for and others against on this proposal. Hence, there is no relation of economics with the proposal of Votership. On these circumstances the proposal of votership will influence the established principles of economics. It is The real fact is that the Votership is share of a voter in the total rent of collective property

not correct that the conception of Votership will be affected by the principles of economics. JJ. That the petitioners assume the conception of It is well known that Public Hence, trusting on

Votership as a subject of Public Finance, rather than a subject of economics. Finance bridges the two subjects - the Political Science and the Economics. opinion of only few economists is just like trusting the advice of a cardiologist doctor on a patient suffering from neurological disease. The petitioners conclude that the authorized advisor on the proposal of Votership is parliament not economists. KK. That any legal opinion of the legal experts on

the proposal of Votership will be devoid of the philosophical and juristic conception involved in this proposal. Therefore, petitioner deemed it proper to get the opinion of constitutional experts’ rather than the opinion of jurists. It may be noticed that some of the constitutional experts are included among the petitioners. LL. That prima-facie it appears that dearness would

increase when money of Votership will came into market. After long deliberations with the experts of moenitory policy, petitioners have concluded that the per capita volume of currency produced in India is very less than many other countries of the world. The main presumption behind this policy is that majority of people should be given only as much money which is enough for their physical survival

only. It is also presumed by the policy makers that the aforesaid money should go to the people against the sale of their labor at the market rates. Since this is an undemocratic and unconstitutional assumption so that it should be obligatory to increase the volume of the per capita currency notes issued by the RBI. On account of this for time being it will appear that dearness is increasing, but after some times it will start decreasing. After implementation of the proposal of the votership not only maximum money will come into the market but the speed of flow of money will also be increased. The excess money will increase effective demand and this demand will force establishment of new units of factories to supply the new demand. These new units will increase the This extra production will opportunity of the employment and increase the volume of production. decrease the dearness. MM. That the resident of upper floor may drop

domestic waste of their flats at down stairs but similar actions can not be done by the resident of ground floor. Similarly in fact the developed country is in the nature of the position of the upper floor and developing country like India is on the ground floor. In this situation it is not proper that the people of down floor should learn in every walk of life from the people of upper floor. countries is excess The problem of developed of money and problem of So

developing country is shortage of money.

votership is not solution of developed countries and similarly the policies and principles of developed

countries could not become ideal for India like developing country. NN. That the petitioners are observing that there is

no any sincere and effective measure is adopted to check the growth rate of population. It is Votership, through which the literacy level of female will increase and a literate female will manage the household much sensible way. It has been already experienced in developed and prosperous countries. Actually, very few are realizing that population is growing only in poor families of all caste, religion, sect and locality of the country. In fact low income of the family instigates to produce more children for social security. OO. That, the principal petitioner of this petition is

not submitting this petition to Council of States as one of his casual activity, but it is consequential to his research work of last twelve years. petitioner has devoted his life for The principal getting his

Votership and for obtaining the same for all voters, and committed to take this just activity to its conclusion. PP. The proposal of Votership is capable to solve

maximum problems perpetuated from very long time and country has been facing badly. The money of votership will check the crimes provoked by the financial crisis and terrible scene of economic disparities pervaded all over the society. Votership will provide opportunity to live with dignity and

respect to more than 70% citizen who are reserved today for hard work and low level of livelihood. The proposal of political financing which is closely related with votership will release the public representatives from the burden of expenses of maintaining and increasing social contacts. This situation will inspire the honest persons to join the politics. effectively the scope of corruption. The new generation of politicians and statesmen will check Votership will definitely inculcate national affection as the monetary support of parents inculcates affection among the children. The money of Votership will empower the poor section too of society of SC and ST who are not able to exercise the rights of reservation due to extreme financial constraints of households in mejority. Votership will inject the strength among them to move towards courts against grievances committed. Votership will safeguard the talents born in poor families which are today killed at mass level. Democracy will become more acceptable through Votership. traditional It will increase percentage of voting in three pillar structure of democracy. elections. It will start functioning as fifth pillar in the Aspirations of preamble, of Part 4 specially article 39, 40 and 51 and of article 14 and 15 will be satisfied by this mechanism of Votership. This money will make available food, house, drinking water and health to all.
[ A Book written by Bharat Gandhi on “Votership” can be produced at the time of hearing before this Hon’ble court ]

5.

That in the year 2007, Bharat Gandhi made a Petitioners committee and had filed a Petition to the Hon’ble Speaker of Lok Sabha along-with full consent and written support of 112 Member of Parliaments of Lok Sabha under Rule 168 of Rules and Procedure of Conduct of Business of Lok Sabha, and requested to apply “Votership” to each and every citizen of India as their fundamental right/birth-right, so that no-one can die for starvation in India. This Petition not only prays for providing share of Nation Income from nature and Machine, directly to every citizen of India through ATM card in lieu of several bogus defective projects of the Government, but also prays for fixing Ceiling of inheriting property transfer [like agricultural ceiling]. The Petitioner is fighting for common citizenship amongst Asian commonwealth countries to form United Nations Government [UNG] in the place of UNO. [ A copy of Petition published in a form of Book written by Bharat Gandhi named “Votership”, which can be produced at the time of hearing before this Hon’ble court ]

6.

That in the year 2008 the similar petition was also filed by the Petitioner Committee under the leadership of Bharat Gandhi, with written consent and support of 250 members of Rajya Sabha before the Hon’ble Vice President of India / Hon’ble Chairman of Rajya Sabha. Both the petitioners are still under consideration by various standing committee of the Parliament in the same year 33

MPs of Lok Sabha also gave notice under Rule 193 of Rules and Procedure of Conduct of Business of Lok Sabha to the speaker and demanded detail on those issue.

7.

That on 6.5.2008 the debate on demand of said 33 MPs was assured by the Hon’ble Speaker but one day before on 5.5.2008 the Session of Lok Sabha was san de and the debate was derailed. The said issue was not taken for debate in the next session of the Lok Sabha despite all the efforts of MPs. In such circumstances inculcated the mistress among the leadership of big political parties and the Members of the FEFM and Voters Pension Party concluded to contest direct Elections and submit their findings before the Electorate. It was also decided that the name of Voters Pension Party should be amended.

8.

That the name of “Voters Pension Party” was therefore changed as “VOTERS PARTY” in December 2008. The manifesto of the Party was declared and some followers of the Voters Party contested Lok Sabha Election in April 2009. The Experiences came that all the contestants were treated as Independent Candidates by the Election Commission of India. Copy of said………………………………….. ANNEXURE-“P-2” page annexed herewith as

9.

That this event of Parliament and the behavior of Core leaders of big Political Parties avoid the members who were working since

last 10 years for the political reforms and for Parliamentary approval of Fundamental Economical Right of the Voters. Members therefore reached in the conclusion that the wide separate Poverty is not the output of mental and physical weakness of the poor people but the poor people are reserved to work against nominal earning just for their bread and butter which is nothing but slavery. Such practice is stringently maintained by (various) Laws, traditions and assumption of the Governance. Such superstitions could never be able to eliminate even after 1000 years. It is also concluded by the members that a big part of lower level cadre of about every big political parties including MPs and M.L.As are ready to favour the findings of the NAFER, but the core leaders of the big parties are not ready to even listen and talk on the issue of Political reforms. Neither they are ready for

discuss on this issue within their party nor they are ready to permit there MPs and MLAs for debate on the floor of the Parliament. Members of the Association were bound to form a new Political Party at this stage, when all the ways are looked closed.

10.

That during this period the petitioner came to know that one member of the Petitioner in collusion with other member/nonmembers have applied for registration of “Voters Party” as a political party before Respondent No.1, Election Commission of India. The Petitioner forthwith gave an objection letter with all supporting documentary proof that the petitioner is the old and

original registered organization; hence the applicant/Respondent No.3 has no right to register Voters Party in their favour.

11.

That on 17.11.2009 the Respondent No.1, Election Commission asked the Petitioner whether the Voters Party is registered society or organization or NGO at anywhere in India? Copy of letter dated 17.11.2009 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-“P-3” page -

12.

That on 11.12.2009, the petitioner replied, the “Voters Party was functioning under social organization named NAFER, which is a Registered Society. The petitioner replied that Voters Party is working as the political polarization branch of a Registered society of name and fame, namely “National Foundation of Education and research (NEFER in short). Later on this organization became famous in the name of “Federation for Economic Freedom Movement (FEFM). It is replied that Bharat Gandhi wrote a book named ARTHIK NARSAMHAR KE KHILAF MAHABHARAT (Struggle Against Economic Genocide) and before publishing the contents of the book was sent to her Excellency Ms. Prathibha Patil. The President and the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India. Acknowledgements were annexed as No. 12 & 13. In the said book the manifesto of VOTERS PARTY was published, which came to the knowledge of a person, who applied for registration of “Voters Party” before Election Commission without knowledge and consent of the Petitioner and declared Voters Party as a political Party of Respondent No.3 on 24.08.2007 in a public

meeting at Parliament Street, New Delhi. The Petitioner forthwith gave objection petition before the Respondent No.1/Election Commission of India. Copy of Reply letter dated 11.12.2009 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-“P-4” page -

13.

That the petitioner organization then realized that the Association of “Voters Party” shall be registered as a Political Party with the Election Commission of India to protect the name, “Voters Party” and its ideologies from misusing by others. Therefore on

13.12.2009 the concerned members of the NAFER and FEFM and Voters Party therefore dissolved its Political Education Wing named Voters Party, formally known as Voters Pension Party on 13.12.2009 and suggested those members to form a Political Party and get it registered with the Election Commission of India. The name of said Political Party anonymously selected as “Voters Party”. Since Voters Party became a Political Party independently. The Committee then constructed a draft a competent Constitution of as a Political Party for registration of the said Party with Election Commission of India in the name of “VOTERS PARTY”.

14.

That on 01.01.2010 under the leadership of Bharat Gandhi, the original founder of NAFER and with consent of FEFM and Voters Party formed a new committee and said new Committee anonymously the non-political Voters Party was dissolved. The committee also decided that the name of new political party should be “Voters Party”. So the name has not been changed but

status of the organization has been since changed from nopolitical party to a Political Party. The Committee decided that the name of the New Political Party must be the same as “Voters Party” to avoid any confusion amongst its members followers and supporters who were already working and supporting the issue of Political Reforms under the banner of non-political organization and Voters Pension Party as well as Voters Party. The domain name of the “Voters party” was registered with the petitioners and the petitioners are owning and running the website named as www.Voters-Party.org and www.votership.com. A bank account also opened in the name of “Voters Party”. An application for registration of “Voters Party” in commission was moved within 20 days from the date of formation of the party.

15.

The said New Committee therefore, drafted the New Constitution of “Voters Party” as a political party and applied before Election Commission of India within 30 days time on 20.1.2010 of said political party named “Voters Party” duly annexed the required documents like Voter’s Card and affidavits of 100 members of different States along with its Constitution and fees as per section. The Constitution of Voters Party (80 pages) can be produced before this Hon’ble court at the time of hearing, if required.) Copy of Application dated 20.01.2010 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-“P-5” page -

16.

That an objection was also filed to the Election Commission of India for not registering VOTERS PARTY in the name of anybody also except the petitioner as the petitioner are to know that someone has applied for Registration of Political Party in the name of “Voters Party” reputation, goodwill with a malafide intention of using the public support of the petitioner

and

Organization as well as misuse the name of Voter’s Party. In such case the petitioner can be blackmailing. The petitioner also annexed supporting documents regarding existence and activities of Voters Party for the period of last several years.

17.

That on 22.07.2010 the Respondent No.1, Election Commission of India rejected stating that the application for registration of Voters party was not made within 30 days from the formation of the organization, Voters Party, as many candidates contested elections in the name of Voters Party prior to the formation of this party as a political organization. But it is admitted by the Respondent No.1/Election Commission that since it was not a Political Party, these candidates were treated independent. The Election Commission of India raised objection to register “Voters Party” will this misconception that the party has already been existing for the period of more than 30 days hence it can not be registered with the commission as a Political Party under Rule. The Election ought to have consider that the Constitution of “Voters Party” was formed on 1.1.2010, which was clearly mentioned and annexed with the application for Registration of

“Voters Party” prior to 1.1.2010 it is a social organization working and functioning as a wing of a Registered Society named NAFER. There was no independent constitution. Copy of letter dated 22.07.2010 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-“P-6” page -

18.

That in reply to an application under RTI the respondent No.2 informed a member of the Petitioner that Voters Party has been registered in favour of Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.1 did not gave any importance/value of activeness and genuineness of the Petitioner-organization, who has been actively working, sacrificing and fighting for social cause in the society since last 20 years for providing them Votership [Voters Pension] and education to each and every citizen of India and the society should be actively beneficiary, if “Voters Party” would be registered in favour of the Petitioner. Copy of Reply under RTI dated 6” page 2011 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-“P-

19.

That Respondent No.1/Election commission should not issue registration certificate to duplicate and fraud body in the same name of Voters Party as Respondent No.1 /Election commission was well informed and was admitted that “voters Party is running by the Petitioner.

20.

That there is no any sufficient reason to fix the 30 days to apply for registration under Respondent No.1/Elec Commission of India.

This duration should not be 3 days or 3 years. Such clause of the Respondent No.1 debarred the poor organization of poor societies from registration of their Association under Election Commission of India with an ulterior motive of running India by rich and bureaucrats, industrialists and criminals. In fact, the work of forming an association, trust or party is initiated by a person individually or by a very small group for getting public support and fund, initiators spent money by their own pocket. In this phase they work very hard. This phase may be known as experimental stage of the association. In this phase initiators could be able to find out the appropriate terminology and language to express their motive and to achieve the objectives of the association. It generally happens that for getting public support, initiators have to change even the name of the association during experimental stage. If initiators of association will be compelled to get their association registered during first phase, then they will be bound to get another association register in second stage. This compulsion will destroy a very big part of mental, manual and financial energy of initiators only in registration. Due to this policy of registration work of social and political reform will suffer a lot. It is about impossible to complete the procedure given bellow as per the rules of the commission1) To contact minimum 100 persons. 2) To convince them to join party. 3) To convince them to donate funds,
4) To convince them to go district election office to get voter

certificate.

5) To collect minimum 100 copies of voters certificates, 6) To collect minimum 100 affidavites from various district and various states, 7) To get prepared the draft of Rs. 10, 000/8) To constitute the drafting committee to draft constitution of the party.
9) To get approved the draft of the constitution by the general

assembly of the party. 10) To draft the application as per the rules provided by the commission, 11) To submit the application in the office of the commission within 30 days from the date of the formation of the party.

All above acts are not possible to do by any party or association without declaring the name of the association. It is necessary to register the name of the party first, and then the procedure of the registration should be as simple as the procedure of the registration of the domain name of the website. Commission neither reserves any symbol nor provide any type of financial help to registered parties.

20.

That the condition for applying for registration within 30 days is not imposed in other acts related to registrations like The Societies Registration Act 1860, Trust (Registration) Act 1882, Company (Registration) Act 1956, Partnership (Registration) Act 1860 etc. Formation of a Political Party is more difficult then the others as referred.

21.

That the Petition of the Petitioner is bonafide with the following grounds amongst the others:

GROUNDS
A. Because letter of the respondent No.1 vide No. 56/34/2010/PPS-

I/517 dtd. 22.07.2010 whereby the respondent has refused to register the petitioner as a political party wrong, Illegal and is bad in law. This act of Respondent No.1 is contradictory,

discriminatory, inadequate and malpractice.

B. Because Respondent No.1/Election commission should not issue registration certificate to duplicate and fraud body in the same name of “Voters Party” as Respondent No.1 /Election commission was well informed and was admitted that “voters Party” is running by the Petitioner.

B. Because the provision of 30 days for filing application for

registration from the date of formation of a political party is absolutely illegal, malafide, unjust and having no reasonable excuse.

C. Because the condition for applying for registration within 30 days

carries no sufficient weight, illegal, malafide, bad in law and unconstitutional as such condition is not imposed in other acts related to registrations like The Societies Registration Act 1860, Trust (Registration) Act 1882, Company (Registration) Act 1956,

Partnership (Registration) Act 1860 etc. Such bar of 30 days debarred thousands of poor organization from poor sector of the country and protects the organizations supported by bureaucrats, industrialists, and criminals and/or from rich backgrounds.

D. Because it is not possible to arrange 100 affidavits, and other documents from several states of India with 30 days after formation of a new Political Organization practically on ground.

E. Because there is no importance, legal need and/or justification to

keep 30 days limitation for registration of a Political Party from its date of formation except an ulterior motive to protect the rights of poor organizations and old strong organizations from registration as a political party for contesting election against the existing and/or ruling parties. Such policy is hence against democracy, unconstitutional, illegal and very bad in the eye of law.

F. Because the Respondent No.1 ought to have considered that

Voters Party of the Petitioner was functioning under NAFER, a registered society as a non-political organization and the same had been dissolved.

G. Because the Respondent No.1 has make a grave error in not

considering the dissolution of non political Voters Party on 13.12.2009 and a new political party was formed in the same name on 01.01.2010. There is no bar for keeping same name of

an non-political organization and a political organization if earlier organization dissolved.

H. Because the Respondent is empowered to review its own

decision vide letter No. 56/34/2010/PPS-I/517 dtd. 22.07.2010, whereby the respondent has refused to register the petitioner as a political party. and should consider application of petitioners to register Voters Party due to two reasonsi) Any association with the name of Voters Party was not existing on 1st January 2010, when Petitioner’s Voters Party was formed. Application in commission was moved within 20 days from the date of formation of the party. Hence, the application for registration was not time barred, as commission has estimated.

ii)

I. Because the Respondent No.2 has make a grave error to apply for registration of a Political Party in the name of Petitioners organization Voters Party knowingly that the said organization is not belonging to Respondent No.2. In fact Respondent No.2 have cheated the Petitioner and liable to be punished for the same.
J. Because.

Respondent No.1/Election Commission was well

informed and was admitted that “voters Party is running from for several years as a non-political organization for the society, but the Respondent No.1 registered knowingly a running body in favour of a fraud group without considering that the petitioner formed a new political organization in the same name, “Voters Party” and applied within 30 days for registration. The persons

who filed Nominations in the Elections were independent candidates. There is no bar to fight election with the idea and ideology of “Votership” and for that the petitioners party should not be effected.

K. Because the concept/policy of the Respondent No.1 regarding

refusal of registration on the ground that some individual stood as a candidate of Voters Party in Elections is illegal, wrong, and baseless as the Respondent No.1 treated those candidate as Independent Candidate, not a candidate for Voters Party. Such act of Respondent No.1 is illegal, malafide in the premises of the Election Commission, registration. especially in the process of party

22.

That the petition of the petitioner is bonafide and in the interest of Justice.

23.

That the petitioner has not filed any other similar petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and any other Courts.

PRAYER:

In these circumstances, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased issue of a writ, order[s], direction[s] the nature of mandamus, (i) Directing the respondent to register the petitioners

organization “Voters Party” as a political party under sub

section (4) section 29a of representation of the people act 1951 And (ii) Mandamus, directing the respondent no.1 to cancel the registration of no.2 herein] And/or (III) Mandamus, directing the respondent no.1 to remove the provision of 30 days limitation i.e. “an application for registration of a political party should be made within the period of 30 days next following from the date of formation of the said party”. And/or (iv) Any further order[s] direction[s] in favour of the petitioner which this hon’ble court dim fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and interest of justice. : so called “voters party” which is already registered in favour of a bogus organization, [respondent

Date :

January 2011.

Petitioner in Person

Place : New Delhi.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P. (C) NO.______________OF 2011 In the matter of: VOTERS PARTY Through: Secretary General, Sh. Asit Kumar Roy …. VERSUS ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AFFIDAVIT I Asit Kumar Roy, Gen Secretary of the Petitioners organization, Voters Party, office at 22 C/A-1, Mayur Vihar-3, Delhi-110096, do hereby solemnly affirm and delere as under:
1.

PETITIONER

…. RESPONDENT

That I am petitioner of this case and know all the facts and circumstances of the case and do hereby swear this affidavit.

2.

That the present Petition has been drafted by me, which I understand that the contents of the same from para No. 1 to true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. are

3.

That the Annexure of this Petition are also correct copies of their respective originals. DEPONENT

VERIFICATION : Verified at New Delhi on this knowledge and belief. day of March, 2011 that the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my

DEPONENT