So Mamata Banerjee blinked first. After threatening to precipitate a constitutional crisis by not accepting the Election Commission’s directive to transfer some state government officials, including the police chiefs of five districts, she has finally listened to saner counsel. Last year, too, she had gone on the warpath — against the State Election Commission — over panchayat poll dates and the deployment of Central forces to oversee security. The Supreme Court eventually forced her to comply. It may be tempting to dismiss these as the antics of a maverick politician, or the illusions of an eternal agitationist, a rebel without a pause. After all, West Bengal was not the only state ordered by the EC to transfer key officials. As many as 44 officials have been transferred in Uttar Pradesh. The police chief of Punjab has been shifted, as has the police commissioner of Chennai. Madhya Pradesh and Odisha, too, have seen their fair share of transfers. These orders have not gone down well with the State governments — all ruled by non-Congress dispensations — which have also voiced their displeasure. But only the mercurial Mamata Banerjee saw the action as a plot to rig the polls in her opponents’ favour!

The crisis, does, however, raise some larger issues, which merit closer attention. The EC is perfectly correct in its assertion that it is only doing what it is constitutionally mandated to do. The Constitution clearly vests the right to supervise, control and direct the conduct of elections in a free and fair manner. Further, Section 28(A) of The Representation of the People Act does give it effective control over the police apparatus, and also the power to transfer any official it deems necessary to do so in the interest of free and fair elections. In fact, EC guidelines say state governments should review postings, and transfer certain key officials, including police and district administration heads, out of their home districts (or if they have completed more than three years in their current posting) even before elections are formally notified! That these guidelines have been observed more in the breach, and that most parties in power do try to use the state machinery under their control in their favour during elections, forms the subtext of the periodic confrontations between the EC and various political dispensations.

However, we have travelled some distance from the days of blatant violence, booth capturing and outright rigging which used to be part and parcel of the elections. Electronic voting has considerably reduced the ability of officials to manipulate outcomes. An omnipresent media has also served to expose more flagrant violations. And what of the officials themselves? Politicians are good at telling friend from foe, but not so adept at distinguishing neutrals. Any official ordered to be transferred immediately becomes marked as ‘pro’ or ‘anti’, as indeed are those taking their place! With the EC offering no reasoning for its actions, and with the officials having no recourse to appeal, one could argue that the careers of these officials could be blighted, sometimes without sufficient justification. The process needs review.

comment COMMENT NOW