Is EC playing favourites?

Mumbai: The Election Commission (EC) was dragged into a fresh controversy recently when the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) IT cell chief, the Karnataka Congress IT cell chief and an English news channel declared the election date for the state before the official announcement. Social media was flooded with messages not only slamming the political leaders but also questioning the EC over the crucial information leak.

In the recent past, the EC has found itself dragged into many controversies like the disqualification of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) members, who were later reinstated by the Supreme Court or delaying the announcement of dates for the Gujarat polls. The Karnataka poll date is not the only case where the EC’s impartiality has been questioned. In fact, experts and political observers are divided over the EC’s credibility and the influence of the ruling party on its functioning.

The mammoth task of conducting elections in a diverse country like India has always remained a challenge for the EC for years. Last year’s Bollywood film Newton also highlighted the efforts by EC officials to conduct free and fair elections in the remote, naxal-infested area of Chhattisgarh. There are many such stories of the efforts taken by the EC to reach out to voters against all odds, including difficult terrain, lack of infrastructure and inadequate manpower. However, off late, a debate has started in political circles on whether the EC has become a political tool in the hands of the ruling party.

Political commentator and retired head of the department of politics, Mumbai University, Prof. Surendra Jondhale has criticised the EC’s style of functioning. “The recent cases of violation of the EC’s own norms indicate that the institution is eroding its constitutional credibility and morality. In the case of the disqualification of AAP MLAs, no primary inquiry was conducted by the EC. The SC pointed out the same thing while reinstating them. It is not the first time that the EC’s stand has been questioned. But now its functioning has become openly questionable,” he said.

Commenting on whether the EC is under the influence of the ruling party, he said, “Any ruling party will have its influence on the EC. But it was not visible so far or made so obvious. But now doubts have been raised by people as things are happening repeatedly,” he said.

However, Sharad Kumar from the Association for Democratic Reforms has lauded the EC for being the “only” impartial institution in the country. “Foreign countries give the example of the Election Commission of India for being credible and impartial. This institution has been nurtured in this way for years. The allegations that we see today against it, are merely political. So far, only one party had been ruling the country and now another has taken over. Hence, all other Opposition parties have come together to question the credibility of the EC.

But one or two instances do not belittle its credibility,” he said. Mr Kumar, who closely follows the general as well as the local election process and engages in analysis of candidates, said the EC is an institution that is open to reforms to make the election process better and transparent. “The EC has brought many reforms since its inception. But parties oppose these reforms, as they are not in their favour. The Supreme Court however, has been supportive of these reforms for free and fair elections,” he said.

As per the EC website, the institution does not allow any interference in the election process. “In the performance of its functions, the EC is insulated from executive interference. It is the commission which deci-des the election sche-dules for the conduct of elections, whether general elections or byelections. Again, it is the EC which decides on the location of polling stations, assignment of voters to the polling stations, location of counting centres, arrangements to be made in and around polling stations, counting centres and all other allied matters,” the site reads.

Not withstanding the criticism about its credibility, the EC in June last year wrote to the law ministry seeking powers for contempt and to act against defamation. The ministry has not replied as yet, but legal experts are sceptical about any such possibility. A similar demand had been raised by the EC some 30 years ago but the law ministry did not accede to it.  “The existing law does not give the EC any power to exercise contempt. The only power for contempt is with the court of this country and that also contempt of the court order. If a person is committing contempt of a court order then only contempt action will follow, which involves civil and criminal imprisonment or fine. The EC has no power of contempt. The EC under the power of law is a mute spectator. These issues ultimately will have to be decided by the court,” said Sujay Kantawala, senior lawyer practicing at the Bombay high court.  

There is no doubt that the EC is facing one of the worst phases of the perception battle. For a healthy democracy, it is of paramount importance that the EC remains independent. Shutting down people from criticising the EC cannot be the solution. There are examples from the past such as former CECs R.V.S. Peri Sastri, T.N. Seshan and J.M. Lyngdoh, who took decisions against the whims and fancies of ruling parties. Once again, the need of the hour is to uphold the EC’s integrity by remaining vigilant and autonomous for the sake of democracy.

 Run-ins with CEC

• 1989: The Congress government led by Rajiv Gandhi appointed two election commissioners on the eve of the 1989 general election.
• It was seen as an attempt to peg back then-chief EC R.V.S. Peri Sastri, who had resisted the government’s attempts to dictate terms to the EC.
• 1990: The National Front government came to power and removed the two commissioners appointed by the Congress government.
• 1993: The then-Narasimha Rao government once again appointed two ECs. The move was aimed at clipping the wings of T.N. Seshan.
• 2002: Then-Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi dissolved the Gujarat Assembly to force early elections and capitalise on the sentiments stirred up by the 2002 riots. However, then-CEC J.M. Lyngdoh ruled out early elections on the grounds that the situation was not conducive for free and fair elections.

Political players

• Former chief election commissioner M.S. Gill joined Congress after his tenure ended. Nationwide debate erupted on whether a former CEC should join active politics.
• On January 12, 2009 the then-chief election commissioner N. Gopalaswami told the President to remove election commissioner Navin Chawla, accusing him of being guilty of ‘partnership’.