Bharat Bhushan - Urgent need to find ways to enforce the EC's accountability
Prime Minister Narendra Modi began his speech in a campaign rally by the salutation “Abhinandan!”—literally, “salutations” in Hindi. It cannot be entirely coincidental that Abhinandan is also the Indian Air Force officer who became a household name after he was shot down over Pakistan, captured and subsequently released. Disingenuously, he also added that he was sure that the Congress would complain to the Election Commission (EC) about this. Although he was sailing close to the wind, Prime Minister Modi seemed confident that any complaint about the impropriety of using the valour of the armed forces for garnering votes would be ignored by the EC. And he was probably right.
He has already been exonerated by the EC in a number of complaints about repeated references to the armed forces, such as asking first time voters to dedicate their vote to the brave soldiers who conducted the Balakot airstrike against Pakistan and flexing military muscle by saying that India’s nuclear weapons were not fireworks meant for Diwali celebrations. Communally charged statements against political opponents were also found to be unobjectionable by the EC. So it is unlikely that it would censure him for the dog-whistle reference to Abhinanadan. The only saving grace is that at least one election commissioner held his ground on the clean chits given to Prime Minister Modi for his communal campaign speech at Wardha and for seeking votes in the name of the armed forces.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the Modi government has strategically groomed the EC -- the ruling party appoints the election commissioners – for such an eventuality. It explains why the EC instead of being a neutral umpire seems to have become a player in the ongoing electoral contest.
Most governments in the past have appointed their favourites to the EC and this government is no exception. However, once they occupied the high office of an election commissioner, most appointees tried to uphold the institutional mandate.
T N Seshan, became legendary in fact as the Chief Election Commissioner who initiated major electoral reforms. Many however were non-descript and a few blatantly partisan. Legend has it that one of them took such frequent washroom breaks during commission meetings that his colleagues presumed he had a weak bladder till they found out that he was stepping out to seek directions from his political mentors. Another fairly strong Chief Election Commissioner, M S Gill, did a great disservice to the institution after demitting office, by joining the Congress party. He was accommodated in the Rajya Sabha and appointed a minister in the Manmohan Singh cabinet. The Congress party appointed an officer who had been found guilty of excesses during the Emergency as an election commissioner. He went on to head the commission.
Institutional decline in the EC then pre-dates the leadership of Prime Minister Modi and the Congress has no moral authority to object to the present incumbents. Yet one of them was involved in advising a corporate lobbyist while in government service. Three conversations of his were recorded in the infamous Radia Tapes. If respect for an umpire is created on the field as well off it, then the conduct of this election commission has lost it substantial credibility. It has actively joined the game and its refereeing is questionable.
The EC had demonstrated its partisanship even earlier in opposing enhanced matching of EVMs (Electronic Voting Machines) with the paper-trail of votes generated by the VVPAT (Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trail). It opposed an increase in matching voter slips from one EVM per assembly segment to five claiming it would cause a six-day delay in results as only person counted the paper slips in each constituency. It was left to the Chief Justice of India to point out that this number could be increased. Besides, considering that the EC has already extended the polling over two months, a further week’s delay in counting would make little difference if it enhances public confidence in the polling process.
The Supreme Court then ordered an increase VVPAT counting from one polling booth per assembly segment to five. Now the Opposition has petitioned it to increase it to 50 per cent of all polling booths. The petition will be heard this week. This is significant because the EC has been underplaying the malfunctioning of EVMs. Most complaints are about the vote being cast registering in favour of only one specific party. The buzz in the capital is that the bellwether constituencies to watch for EVM manipulation would be Rahul Gandhi’s constituency in Amethi, Surpiya Sule’s in Baramati and Nitin Gadkari’s in Nagpur.
These controversies underline the importance of reforming the Election Commission. In particular, the appointment of the election commissioners needs to be made bipartisan and not left to the government of the day. This could be done through a parliamentary collegium. It stands to logic that if the Chief Election Commissioner can only be removed by two-thirds majority in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, then Parliament must also have a role in his appointment as well. The other two election commissioners of the three-man commission can be removed by the President on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner. However such a recommendation is not binding. This was evident in the case of Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswamy recommending the removal of Navin Chawla as election commissioner for his partisanship which the then President decided to ignore.
However, it also underlines the importance of the office of the President as the guardian of the Constitution and democratic institutions. The President can advise the EC and nudge it in the right direction and incumbents who have held that high office have done so in the past. In the present context the silence of the President about the accountability of the EC is galling. The letter of sixty-odd retired civil servants to the President does not seem to have elicited any response from Rashtrapati Bhavan. With existing checks and balances becoming dysfunctional, it becomes more urgent than ever to find ways to enforce the EC’s accountability.
He has already been exonerated by the EC in a number of complaints about repeated references to the armed forces, such as asking first time voters to dedicate their vote to the brave soldiers who conducted the Balakot airstrike against Pakistan and flexing military muscle by saying that India’s nuclear weapons were not fireworks meant for Diwali celebrations. Communally charged statements against political opponents were also found to be unobjectionable by the EC. So it is unlikely that it would censure him for the dog-whistle reference to Abhinanadan. The only saving grace is that at least one election commissioner held his ground on the clean chits given to Prime Minister Modi for his communal campaign speech at Wardha and for seeking votes in the name of the armed forces.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the Modi government has strategically groomed the EC -- the ruling party appoints the election commissioners – for such an eventuality. It explains why the EC instead of being a neutral umpire seems to have become a player in the ongoing electoral contest.
Most governments in the past have appointed their favourites to the EC and this government is no exception. However, once they occupied the high office of an election commissioner, most appointees tried to uphold the institutional mandate.
T N Seshan, became legendary in fact as the Chief Election Commissioner who initiated major electoral reforms. Many however were non-descript and a few blatantly partisan. Legend has it that one of them took such frequent washroom breaks during commission meetings that his colleagues presumed he had a weak bladder till they found out that he was stepping out to seek directions from his political mentors. Another fairly strong Chief Election Commissioner, M S Gill, did a great disservice to the institution after demitting office, by joining the Congress party. He was accommodated in the Rajya Sabha and appointed a minister in the Manmohan Singh cabinet. The Congress party appointed an officer who had been found guilty of excesses during the Emergency as an election commissioner. He went on to head the commission.
Institutional decline in the EC then pre-dates the leadership of Prime Minister Modi and the Congress has no moral authority to object to the present incumbents. Yet one of them was involved in advising a corporate lobbyist while in government service. Three conversations of his were recorded in the infamous Radia Tapes. If respect for an umpire is created on the field as well off it, then the conduct of this election commission has lost it substantial credibility. It has actively joined the game and its refereeing is questionable.
The EC had demonstrated its partisanship even earlier in opposing enhanced matching of EVMs (Electronic Voting Machines) with the paper-trail of votes generated by the VVPAT (Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trail). It opposed an increase in matching voter slips from one EVM per assembly segment to five claiming it would cause a six-day delay in results as only person counted the paper slips in each constituency. It was left to the Chief Justice of India to point out that this number could be increased. Besides, considering that the EC has already extended the polling over two months, a further week’s delay in counting would make little difference if it enhances public confidence in the polling process.
The Supreme Court then ordered an increase VVPAT counting from one polling booth per assembly segment to five. Now the Opposition has petitioned it to increase it to 50 per cent of all polling booths. The petition will be heard this week. This is significant because the EC has been underplaying the malfunctioning of EVMs. Most complaints are about the vote being cast registering in favour of only one specific party. The buzz in the capital is that the bellwether constituencies to watch for EVM manipulation would be Rahul Gandhi’s constituency in Amethi, Surpiya Sule’s in Baramati and Nitin Gadkari’s in Nagpur.
These controversies underline the importance of reforming the Election Commission. In particular, the appointment of the election commissioners needs to be made bipartisan and not left to the government of the day. This could be done through a parliamentary collegium. It stands to logic that if the Chief Election Commissioner can only be removed by two-thirds majority in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, then Parliament must also have a role in his appointment as well. The other two election commissioners of the three-man commission can be removed by the President on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner. However such a recommendation is not binding. This was evident in the case of Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswamy recommending the removal of Navin Chawla as election commissioner for his partisanship which the then President decided to ignore.
However, it also underlines the importance of the office of the President as the guardian of the Constitution and democratic institutions. The President can advise the EC and nudge it in the right direction and incumbents who have held that high office have done so in the past. In the present context the silence of the President about the accountability of the EC is galling. The letter of sixty-odd retired civil servants to the President does not seem to have elicited any response from Rashtrapati Bhavan. With existing checks and balances becoming dysfunctional, it becomes more urgent than ever to find ways to enforce the EC’s accountability.
