Election date: Don’t thank god it’s Thursday
It is a settled principle in psephology that a lower voter turnout will mean less anti incumbency as it traditionally reflects less resentment.
The Election Commission’s rejection of a legitimate plea from the Christian community to reschedule its second phase of polling in 13 states on April 18, as it falls on Maundy Thursday, smacks of intransigence and insensitivity. There are three distinct issues at play - religious, logistical and the impact on voter turnout.
Maundy Thursday commemorates the ‘Last Supper’ of Jesus Christ with his disciples, whose feet he washed and marks the institution of the Eucharist. The word ‘Maundy’ is derived from the Latin expression ‘mandatum’ which means ‘command’ and signifies the commandments to his disciples to love one another as He loved them. View the sanctity of this day against Article 25 of the Constitution which guarantees all citizens the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion. This fundamental right is only subject to public order, morality and health. The practices of religion in the form of worship must be distinguished from the freedom to practice it, which may encompass a broader sweep. So the argument that the church service on Maundy Thursday is only in the evening and the whole day exists for voting is specious. Christians may fast, pray, attend adoration services, visit many churches, meditate on biblical verses or do charity. The observance of Maundy Thursday cannot be limited to a couple of hours. And the Election Commission has no business to directly or indirectly suggest how this day must be observed.
What about Christian officials on poll duty? Section 56 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 clearly stipulates that the period for polling on a given day “shall not be less than eight hours.” The legislative intent of this provision is to give voters sufficient time to exercise their franchise, factoring in long queues, procedural delays, interruptions, compliance with security and other requirements. Voting is a sacred duty of all citizens and cannot be a hurried formality. A 3 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court had emphasised that “freedom of voting as distinct from right to vote is a facet of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The casting of vote in favour of one or the other candidate marks the accomplishment of freedom of expression of the voter.”
Starting on Palm Sunday on April 14, the Holy Week goes right up to Easter Sunday on April 21 , with Maundy Thursday and Good Friday falling in between. There are many school grounds administered by the Church that are used for polling and will be required on the next day which is Good Friday for continuous prayers and worship through ‘Way of the Cross’, ‘Adoration’ and Mass for pretty much the whole day. The polling in Madurai has been extended by two hours on account of the Chithirai festival that draws huge crowds. Will these venues be ready overnight for an important day of grief and mourning that marks the crucifixion of Jesus Christ? Has this aspect been considered?
The refusal to reschedule polling need not be viewed as a case of majoritarianism. There are key constituencies in Tamil Nadu like Kanyakumari where almost half the population comprises Christians, with a sizeable count in Tuticorin.
It is a settled principle in psephology that a lower voter turnout will mean less anti incumbency as it traditionally reflects less resentment. With five consecutive holidays starting from Mahavir Jayanthi on Wednesday up to Easter Sunday, the extended weekend will, in all probability, result in a lower polling percentage. This will benefit ruling parties. So does the schedule lend itself to a level playing field? Apart from conducting free and fair elections, shouldn’t one of the goals of the Election Commission, flowing from its mandate under Article 324 of the Constitution, be maximum polling percentage? The Supreme Court in PUCL Vs Union of India noted that “eventually, voters’ participation explains the strength of democracy. Lesser voter participation is the rejection of commitment to democracy slowly but definitely whereas larger participation is better for democracy.”
The apex court in the PUCL case also held that “free and fair elections are a basic structure of the Constitution and necessarily includes within its ambit the right of an elector to cast his vote without fear of reprisal, duress or coercion.” The terms ‘inconvenience’ or ‘time constraints’ or ‘logistical challenges’ could also be pertinent. And it cannot be a toss up between the freedom to practise religion and the right to cast a vote. The apex court added that “the right to vote is a statutory right but it is equally vital to recollect that this statutory right is the essence of democracy. Without this, democracy will fail to thrive. Therefore, even if the right to vote is statutory, the significance attached with the right is massive.”
I have been a fan of the Election Commission and in my previous avatar as a TV journalist, I have referred to it in live programmes as the ‘Man of the Match’ after polling. Drawing up a schedule for polling in 543 constituencies over 7 phases is undoubtedly a herculean task. This is where prior meetings with relevant stake holders should have helped. The proof of the hassle in the schedule will lie in the polling percentage. Meanwhile, Father, forgive them for they know not what they have done.
(The writer is an advocate at the Madras high court, columnist & author)