THE Election Commission performs a vital role in the parliamentary democratic system in India. The Commission is the body authorised by the Constitution to conduct free and fair elections. Article 324 (1) of the Constitution empowers the Commission with: “The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every state…”.
The Commission has, over the last seven decades, fulfilled this responsibility in a manner which has enhanced the credibility of the electoral system in India. The Commission has been conducting the gigantic exercise of parliamentary and legislative elections with punctuality, regularity and efficiency.
In the conduct of free and fair elections, the Commissionhas by and large a creditable record, though there have been lapses andshortcomings on various occasions. Some of these shortcomings cannot be whollyattributable to the Commission, given the type of imperfect bureaucratic systemthat it has to rely upon. At times, theCommission has had to contend with pressures exercised by the government of theday and the ruling party. Here too, with some exceptions, the Commission hasworked within the constitutional framework.
It is, therefore, a matter of concern that many questionsare being raised critical of the way the Commission is conducting the 17th LokSabha election.
The Commission is expected to enforce the model code ofconduct (MCC), take particular care to see that the ruling party does notmisuse the official machinery, ensure a level playing field for all parties andtake steps to curb any practice such as use of money power to vitiateelections.
The three-member Commission headed by Chief ElectionCommissioner, Sunil Arora, has been found wanting on implementing some of theabove tasks. The most common complaintconcerns the enforcement of the MCC, particularly with regard to Prime MinisterNarendra Modi. Narendra Modi has been inthe election campaign making speeches, which repeatedly violate the code ofconduct. He has accused the Congressparty, in a speech, of insulting Hindus and declared that the people wouldpunish them for it in the election. Hehas again and again appealed for votes on the basis of the air strike atBalakot and in the name of the martyrs of Pulwama. His invocation of the armed forces actionsand his taking credit for it have become the leitmotif of his speeches.
Despite several complaints lodged with the ElectionCommission regarding violation of the MCC dating from April 2, the Commissionhas not taken cognizance of these complaints and acted upon them.
When the Supreme Court asked what the Commission was doingregarding hate campaigns and speeches on April 15, the Commission acted againstAdityanath, Mayawati, Azam Khan and Maneka Gandhi prohibiting them fromcampaigning ranging from two to three days. But no action was taken againstNarendra Modi. In the same meeting, theCommission decided to prohibit the Gujarat BJP president, Vaghani, fromcampaigning for three days for making intemperate speeches. The only problem is that the action has beenannounced after the Gujarat polls were over on April 23.
It is only when the petition filed by a Congress MP in theSupreme Court regarding the Commission’s inaction on Modi’s violations of theMCC that the Commission held a sitting for the first time on April 30 anddisposed off the complaint about his Wardha speech. The Commission found it wasnot in violation of the MCC, or, the Representation of the People Act.
The Commission had steadfastly refused to take up thecomplaint regarding the misuse of the armed forces in the campaign by NarendraModi, even though it goes against the specific direction of the Commission thatthe role of the armed forces should not be brought into the election campaign.Since making such a reference in his speech at Latur on April 9, four phases ofpolling are over and, by its inaction, the EC gave Modi a free run. Finally, on May 1, the Commission dealt withthe complaint and ruled that Modi had not violated any code as he had notdirectly asked for votes for his party or himself. This clearance will onlyembolden the likes of Amit Shah who has been shamelessly extolling Modi’s useof the armed forces.
The Election Commission has also shown itself to be visiblyreluctant in taking a firm stand against the misdeeds of the ruling party, theBJP, at the centre and the states. InTripura where the polling for Tripura West Parliamentary Constituency was heldon April 11, the election was marred by large-scale rigging, capturing ofbooths, disabling of CCTV cameras and driving away of polling agents of theopposition parties and voters. TheCPI(M) had demanded re-poll in 846 polling booths providing adequate evidence anddocumentation to prove its case. However, three weeks after the polling, noaction has been taken. It is now reported that the Commission will orderre-poll in only a fraction of the effected booths, despite the fact that allthe enquiries made by the Commission proved large-scale irregularities. The only inference that can be drawn is thatthe Commission does not want to displease the BJP which is also the rulingparty in the state.
This can be contrasted to the prompt manner in which theVellore Lok Sabha seat in Tamil Nadu was countermanded on the plea that a largesum of money was found in a candidate’s house. The difference in this case was that the candidate concerned belonged tothe opposition DMK.
The perception which has grown that the Commission cannotstand up to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP has damaged thecredibility of the institution. We haveseen how, in the five-year term of the Modi government, institution afterinstitution has been either subject to assault, or, eroded from within. None of the constitutional bodies have beenspared. Sadly, the Election Commission,with its proud record as the custodian of the integrity of the electoralsystem, has now become the latest victim.
This state of affairs highlights the need to reform theElection Commission to ensure its integrity and to insulate it from thecorroding influence of the executive and the ruling party. The CPI(M) and otherdemocratic forces have demanded such reforms. The CPI(M) in its electionmanifesto has stated that the present system of appointment of the electioncommissioners solely by the executive, must change. Instead, members of the ECshould be appointed by the president on the advice of a committee consisting ofthe prime minister, the leader of the opposition and chief justice of SupremeCourt. Further, election commissionersmust be debarred from enjoying any office after their retirement either underthe government, or, as a governor, or, member of a legislature.
The Election Commission is too important an institution tobe left to the mercy of the executive.
Prakash Karat is Member, Polit Bureau CPI(M).