Social media has been abuzz with tweets such as “ECI is like a puppet. India wants a person like TN Seshan as EC” or “There was only one T N Seshan who was the best ever EC.”
The trigger was a spate of actions or non-action by the Election Commission (EC) as the Model Code of Conduct for the 2019 Lok Sabha elections kicked in.
Why was the EC, supposedly an apolitical entity, so quick to ban a book on Rafale Scam yet drag its feet on the Opposition’s complaint over NaMo TV?
Similarly, questions were asked about the slow pace at which action was initiated on complaints against the release date of the movie on Modi, which has now been deferred. Questions were also raised on allowing the Prime Minister to use All India Radio and Doordarshan to deliver a speech on the anti-satellite missile development.
As India’s 900 million voters gear up to cast their ballot for the most sharply polarised and vocal elections ever, doubts over the EC’s conduct are surfacing. Is the EC being influenced by the government and unduly biased? Should there be a rethink on the appointment process of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners to retain trust in the entity? To be fair, the number of complaints logged in this election with the EC is also very high — reports suggest over a million complaints logged through the app.
Not a new occurrence
It is not for the first time that questions are being raised against the poll authority or the CEC during elections.
Aashish Chandorkar, public policy commentator, cites some prior instances. “In 2004, JM Lyngdoh was accused of delaying the election which the Vajpayee government wanted in March. The delay was one of the reasons attributed for the loss of the Vajpayee government.”
Another example he gives is from 2009 when Naveen Chawla was accused of being close to the Gandhi family. “NDA made formal requests not to appoint him as CEC much before his turn came. Chawla, however, conducted a very efficient election,” he says.
In the past too, there have been suggestions on institutionalising the appointment process of the CEC, which is governed by the provisions of Article 324 of the Constitution. Currently, the CEC and ECs are appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister as there are no prescribed procedures.
N Gopalaswami, who served as the CEC between 2006 and 2009, and before him BB Tandon, had raised the issue of putting in place a system to appoint the key poll panel.
The demand was to follow a procedure similar to the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner or National Human Rights Commission. For example, the CVC appointment is made based on recommendations given by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, Minister of Home Affairs and Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
Gopalaswami had argued that a similar mechanism could be adopted for the selection of CEC, since credibility and independence are important criteria. His suggestion was that the Committee could have the following composition: The Prime Minister (Chairperson), Speaker of the House of the People (member), Deputy Chairman of the Council of States (member), Leaders of the Opposition in the two Houses (members), and Minister in-charge in the Ministry of Law & Justice (member).
While Chandorkar says that “the excessive criticism which surfaces opportunistically distorts the fact that the process of appointment and subsequent conduct is fairly consistent,” he feels that one improvement could be appointment via a collegium, with representatives of the national political parties part of the decision-making process.
“But there is no guarantee that it will reduce acrimony,” he says. The recent bipartisan process in the appointment of the CBI Director shows that merely widening the representation is no guarantee to stop political mudslinging, he says.
Nasim Zaidi, former Chief Election Commissioner, too, feels the current process of appointments has served well. “This process has given CEC and ECs who have been very objective, impartial, fair, and fearless in their actions and held up the Election Commission of India (ECI) as a role model in global democracies,” he says.
But, he feels the EC’s independence could be strengthened further through some institutional reforms. These include giving protection to ECs on their tenure and removal, as is the case for CEC.
Also, the EC should have control over the recruitment process of its secretariat and the Budget of EC should come from the Consolidated Fund of India.
Former CEC SY Quraishi feels the appointment system should be improved with enough assurance available to the ECs that if they take a strong decision, it wouldn’t jeopardise their elevation. “While the CEC has protection, the ECs are notprotected,” he points out.
As regards adopting the collegium system, Zaidi says, “While it may enhance acceptability of the incumbent amongst political parties, there is no guarantee that this system will throw up independent incumbents. Besides, there will be complexities involved in arriving at a consensus.”
Both Zaidi and Chandorkar stress that, ultimately, it all hinges on the individual who has to conduct himself in a befitting way “The individual has to be strong,” sums up Zaidi.
Richa Mishra