Amidst the ongoing controversy over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, and the manner in which it is implemented, one thing has emerged with stark clarity: In any genuine democracy, free and fair elections cannot take place unless there is an independent, fearless and impartial ombudsman to conduct it.
Under our constitutional system, the body designated to play this role is the Election Commission of India (ECI). If there is a perception that the autonomy of the ECI is compromised, faith in the system will erode and elections will lack democratic legitimacy.
The ECI derives its core authority from Article 324 of the Constitution of India. This provision vests in the Commission “superintendence direction and control” of elections to Parliament and State Legislatures, as also of the elections to the offices of President and vice-president.
In its original incarnation — from 1950 until the late 1980s — the ECI was a single-member body, led only by a Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). But Article 324 envisioned adding “such number of other Election Commissioners (EC) as the President may, from time to time, fix”. In 1989, Parliament enacted a law that expanded the Commission into a three-member body.
The ECI became a formidable watchdog on 12 December 1990 when T.N. Seshan became the CEC. Seshan identified over 150 electoral malpractices — ranging from bribery, the distribution of liquor to voters, misuse of government machinery, defacement of public buildings as part of campaigning, and appeals to religion or caste. He re-energised the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), enforcing its provisions rigorously. The distribution of voter ID cards became mandatory; election expenses were capped; election officials were often drawn from outside a voting state; and independent observers — for the first time — were deployed widely, making intimidation and muscle-power tactics more difficult. Under his watch, in 1992, polls in certain constituencies were cancelled due to malpractices, and in 1993, 1,488 parliamentary candidates were disqualified for not submitting their election expenditure accounts. Seshan did not hesitate to confront powerful political actors, famously saying: “I eat politicians for breakfast.” To them his message was that an election is not a carnival theatre of freebies, muscle and money power but a serious exercise in sovereign choice.
But it is apparent that one individual is not enough to ensure enduring institutional integrity. Over the decades since his tenure, and before it, the impartiality of the ECI has repeatedly been questioned. There are institutional reasons for this scepticism. Firstly, the appointment process of election commissioners is flawed. This was so even during Congress rule. In 2023, the Supreme Court proposed that the selection committee should include the Chief Justice of India (CJI), in addition to the Prime Minister (PM) and the Leader of Opposition — to ensure impartiality. However, later in 2023, the government through an Act of Parliament, overruled the SC’s suggestion and replaced the CJI by another member of the Cabinet, thereby again giving the ruling party overwhelming advantage in the selection process. In such a situation the inference is not unfounded that the government — and the ruling party of the day — will endeavour to appoint such commissioners who it believes will be suitably pliable, or at the very least, sensitive to the interests of their appointing political masters.
Secondly, the same Act removed the equivalence of the ECs by giving the CEC the power to remove the other two, thereby pressurising ECs to align with the CEC — or even with the government — lest they lose their post or future elevation. What happened with EC Ashok Lavasa, who had the temerity to give a dissenting viewpoint regarding the ruling party, is illustrative. It may be a coincidence, but after his show of independence, a series of pressure tactics were deployed, unrelated to his actual area of work but involving in extraneous ways him and his family, that possibly compelled him to accept the “golden handshake” of an inconsequential job as a nominal vice-president of the ADB in Manila, when he was, in terms of seniority, set to take over as the CEC.
Thirdly, the MCC has, after Seshan — and before him — never been implemented as rigorously as it should have been. For instance, in the recent Bihar elections, the ECI, which otherwise stops the disbursement of cash transfers — even under ongoing schemes — months before the elections, did nothing to stop the disbursement of Rs 10,000 to an estimated 60 to 62,000 women in each constituency, literally an hour before the MCC was announced. Nor did it prevent new beneficiaries being reportedly added to the scheme even after the MCC came into effect. It shut a blind eye, too, to the Central government running special trains free of cost to Bihar to conveyance voters, which is also forbidden under the MCC. And, furthermore, reports indicate that large sections of the ancillary organisations affiliated to the government — Jeevika Didis, Anganwadi workers, Tola workers — were deployed in and around the election booths to influence voter choice, in direct contravention of rules which permits only accredited government officials to be in such proximity. A code enforced only against Opposition parties but ignored in favour of the ruling party damages not only fairness — but public trust.
The question is not who wins or loses elections. Many of the recent losses suffered by the Opposition are, indeed, due to its own ineptness and the inability of its many constituents to stand united and work cohesively. In particular, the Congress, the single largest Opposition party, needs urgently and radically to put its own house in order. It cannot, and should not, use the election process as the sole alibi for its own organisational weakness, leadership inadequacies and the repeated electoral setbacks it has become immune to.
Yet, the fundamental issue is to retain the credibility of elections, and ensure a level playing field for all participants. Unless this is done, either through legal reform or greater scrutiny and pubic demand for accountability, the very foundation of our great democratic heritage will be in jeopardy. In this context, the key question that we must ask ourselves is: Do we want an ECI that merely conducts elections, or one that defends democracy?
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: deccanchronicle.com
