The Election Commission’s (EC) credibility is at an all-time low. It is obvious, it is unable to enforce the Moral Code of Conduct (MCC) when it comes to PM Narendra Modi and BJP chief Amit Shah — the two most powerful persons presently presiding over the destiny of India — while it acted with alacrity against lesser mortals like Mayawati, Yogi Adityanath, Azam Khan, Navjot Singh Sidhu and now against the Malegaon blast accused Sadhivi Pragya, who is contesting against Digvijay Singh from Bhopal.
With the election campaign for the fifth phase concluding on Saturday, May 4, the delay in acting for more than a month on the complaints was inexcusable. It was only after the Opposition went knocking at the apex court’s door that the EC finally acted and gave the PM five clean chits in quick succession.
But the inordinate delay in responding to the Opposition’s clamor did put a question mark over the credibility of the institution. And if media reports are to be believed there was an undercurrent of dissent to the EC’s decision with one of the three commissioners dissenting with the majority view to let PM Modi and Amit Shah off the hook for their comments.
As per Article 324 of the Constitution, the EC, as an independent constitutional authority, is vested with the power of “superintendence, direction and control of election.” It is responsible for conducting free and fair elections without fear or favour, ensuring a level playing field as far as the election campaign is concerned.
It is very relevant to recall the grounds on which Justice Jagmohan Lal Saxena of Allahabad High Court, in his judgment June 12, 1975, had declared Indira Gandhi’s election to Lok Sabha in 1971 null and void. Her election was annulled on two technical grounds. The court held her guilty of “…using the state police to build a dais,” and “availing the services of a government officer Yashpal Kapoor” (who actually resigned as the OSD in the PMO before acting as her agent).
The court said that her opponent Raj Narain did not have access to these facilities, and hence the contest between the Prime Minister and her opponent was not a level playing field. The world media was aghast that the Prime Minister could be unseated on such trivial grounds.
When she appealed to Supreme Court, Justice Krishna Iyer granted her a stay and allowed her to continue as the Prime Minister, pending final disposal of the appeal. The rest is history. If somebody had challenged the election of Modi, from Baroda and Varanasi in 2014, by invoking these norms, his election could have been annulled on multiple counts — using the government machinery, ministers camping in his constituencies etc. But the people’s memory is proverbially weak.
The then Union governments had never exploited the victory against Pakistan in 1965 and 1971 wars for electoral gains. In fact, 1971 war that dismembered Pakistan and created Bangladesh had secured the surrender of some 93,000 Pakistan soldiers and handled the gigantic task of managing 100 million refugees from Bangladesh who sought shelter in India.
It was the greatest victory in Indian history. Yet the government of the day didn’t use the valour of the armed forces or the manner it handled the humanitarian crisis for partisan political propaganda. Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said his government had conducted multiple surgical strikes, but did not use them for garnering votes.
He criticized the Modi government for its “unpardonable failures on the economic front,” which is forcing it to hide behind the valour of the armed forces — “a shameful and unacceptable “behavior. He says “Neither Indira Gandhi, nor her predecessor, took away the credit of our armed forces.”
On the so-called obsession with national security, Manmohan Singh’s rebuttal was: “When his government suggested a coastal security mechanism via the National Counter Terrorism Centre, it was then Gujarat Chief Minister Modi who had opposed the idea.” And the retired army officers opine that “the difference is that the previous regime did not talk about the targeted operations. This government took ownership of the strikes.”
In his speech in Wardha on April 1 and in Latur on April 9, PM Modi had accused Rahul Gandhi of contesting from Wayanad, where ‘majority is in minority;” in Latur, he had invoked the valour of armed forces and sought votes in the name of Pulwama terror attack and the Balakot air strikes, but this the EC concluded didn’t violate the model code of conduct.
The EC went against the opinion of its Maharashtra CEO, according to whom Modi had violated the code. Sitaram Yechury, CPM General Secretary, in a letter to the Chief Election Commissioner Sunil Arora, has accused the EC of treating Modi differently from other candidates, as if he is above the law, and alleged Modi has been using the government infrastructure and machinery for his election campaigns.
Huge money is spent on his aircraft and rallies. Who is bearing these massive expenses? This is by no account a level playing field, giving undue advantage to Modi. He has been blatantly abusing the government officials and the machinery. The EC is deciding on the complaints piecemeal, as per its convenience, defeating the very object of complaints, and in the process allowing the completion of elections in 374 seats, with less than 170 seats to go for polls. This is complicity, raising question mark about its independence, neutrality and impartiality.
According to Abishek Singhvi, the Congress party has lodged some 11 complaints against Narendra Modi and Amit Shah with the EC alleging violation of the MCC. Shushmita Dev has filed a Petition in the Supreme Court seeking the court’s direction to the EC to act on the complaints.
The apex court has now directed the EC to decide on all the complaints by May 6. By then the five phases of elections would be over, leaving little over 100 seats for the remaining 6th and 7th phases, negating the very purpose and spirit of the MCC.
G Ramachandram is a Professor of Political Science and retired Principal, who published his Magnus Opus ‘The Trial by Fire: Memoirs of a College Principal’
