The ongoing Lok Sabha elections have thrown up issues pertaining to money power, enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and the role of the Election Commission of India (ECI) in ensuring a free and fair poll, as articulated by the Constitution and subsequent apex court rulings.
To take the first issue, the seizure of unaccounted cash, liquor, drugs, and precious metals worth over ₹3,166 crore till April 25 when only three phases of polling had taken place is in contrast to the ₹1,200 crore seized in all in 2014. The seizures make a mockery of the ₹70-lakh ceiling imposed on the election expenditure of Lok Sabha candidates.
Some political analysts have estimated that India’s elections spending this time may go up to $10 billion, overtaking the US’ $6.5-billion expenditure in the 2016 Presidential elections.The Supreme Court has consistently tried to curb money power, but the political leadership has sought to nullify the effect of its verdicts.
In
Without pulling punches, the Court observed: “It is obvious that pre-election donations would be likely to operate as post-election promises resulting ultimately in the casualty of the common man, not so much ostensibly in the legislative process as in the implementation of laws and administration or policy decisions. The small man’s chance is the essence of Indian democracy and that would be stultified if larger contributions from rich and affluent individuals or groups are not divorced from the electoral process.”
The Court then set aside the election of Amarnath Chawla which came as big shocker to the government of the day. In a series of cases like Gadakh YK v. Balaseh Vikhe Patil (AIR 1994 SC 678), Gajanan Krishanji Bapat v. Dattaji Raghobji Meghe (AIR 1995 SC 2284), and Common Cause v. Union of India (AIR 1996 SC 3081), the apex court gave directions to relieve the system of the taint of money power. However, these judicial directions have not proved effective.
Besides money power, the political discourse has hit a new low, with leaders brazenly invoking religion and caste. Section 123(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, clearly prohibits such speeches but these provisions of law have proved nothing more than paper tigers. The virulence being displayed by politicians of different hues against one another does not bode well for democracy. Ramesh Prabhoo’s election in 1987 as an MLA in Maharashtra was annulled by the Supreme Court as his agent and the Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray made derogatory remarks against Muslims. Thackeray was disqualified from contesting elections for six years.
ECI losing the plot
The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is also being flouted with impunity. The MCC has its genesis in the Assembly elections of Kerala in 1960 when the State administration formulated a “Code of Conduct’ which was accepted by political parties in the State. In the 1962 Lok Sabha elections, the EC circulated it to all recognised political parties and State governments and it was voluntarily accepted. But since then it has been a different story.
The Constitution enjoins the ECI to hold free and fair elections to Parliament and State legislatures as well as of the President and Vice-President. The Supreme Court, in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [(1978) 2 SCR 272)] , decided that under Article 324, “The Constitution contemplates a free and fair election and vests comprehensive responsibilities of superintendence, direction and control of the conduct of elections in the Election Commission. This responsibility may cover powers, duties and functions of many sorts, administrative or other, depending on the circumstances.”
TN Seshan, who was the Chief Election Commissioner between 1990-96, cracked the whip to ensure conduct of a free and fair poll.
The MCC bars hate speeches though it has no statutory basis. The ECI itself is against making it statutory as the power would shift to the courts and the ECI would not be able take any action other than registering an FIR. But the MCC rests on the consent of all parties and the Constitution vests considerable power with the ECI.
But in this election the ECI seems to have become toothless. Sadly, the SC has been reminding the the poll panel of its powers. It is inexplicable why did the ECI has chosen to softpedal a range of violations.
This erosion of the ECI’s credibility is dangerous for democracy.
The writer is a senior TV journalist, columnist and author