Extra-ordinary inaction & (re)actions of EC

Election Commission has used 'extra-ordinary' power to curtail the campaign time in West Bengal State. But the question is; when deteriorating law and order is the cause for such an action, why the ban should start after 24 hours?

If violence on May 14 was so severe that caught the attention of the EC, why the heated and violent campaign should continue for another day? No answer is left with the EC for the criticism that it was because the Prime Minister's rallies were scheduled.

There are many contestants in the constituencies went to polls in the last phase in the State.

If the BJP and the TMC hooligans caused the law and order breach, why other parties and independents should not campaign?

The EC should have disqualified both the BJP and the TMC leaders from campaigning, after an objective and impartial assessment of the situation.

This action means that both the ruling parties – the BJP and the TMC - were allowed another 24 hours of free time just to accommodate Prime Minister's rallies and to prevent all the parties thereafter from campaigning.

For no fault of them, the other contestants suffered due to the ban.

The Prime Minister used even the vandalisation of Eswar Chandra Vidyasagar's idol by promising a larger statue for him. Other than this ban, there is no action against culprits for disrupting process with corrupt practices.

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee alleged that the EC had turned a blind eye to poll process vitiations in places like Gujarat and Haryana, where the BJP is in power.

"This is an emergency situation because of the Election Commission's decisions… But these are not EC decisions, these are Modi-Shah's decisions," Mamata said.

She squarely blamed the BJP for vandalising Vidyasagar's bust while the BJP pointed finger at TMC. It is for the EC to examine and decide hooligans of which group indulged in it.

The officers including the Chief Secretary and the DGP were transferred in Andhra Pradesh, where Chandrababu Naidu is bitterly fighting him, while in similar circumstances none is shifted in Tamil Nadu.

The EC suddenly remembers Article 342, which is an omnibus of general power meant to be used only to conduct fair and free polls, which says:

324. Superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in an Election Commission: (1) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice President held under this Constitution shall be vested in a Commission (referred to in this Constitution as the Election Commission)

The Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v CEC said: "…… Article 324 is a reservoir of power to act for the avowed purpose of not divorced from, pushing forward a free and fair election with expedition…"

This plenary power is for maintaining neutrality, equality and objective actions. The unique privilege of this Constitutional body is that this is immune from judicial interference once the poll process begins.

But this time the Supreme Court was compelled to goad the Election Commission to act on piled up complaints of breach of Model Code of Conduct (MCC) against the Prime Minister himself and dozens of other BJP leaders, in a writ petition by Opposition parties.

The EC was silently watching the breaches and refusing to respond to complaints against the breaches of MCC. Until the Supreme Court rebuked in a writ petition to act, the EC chose to be inactive.

It woke up and then chose to issue orders against Mayawati, Maneka Gandhi, Adityanath, Azam Khan and Pragya Thakur. On May 2, the SC again directed the EC to act on remaining complaints against Modi and BJP president Amit Shah.

Then the EC, unhesitatingly chose to give clean chit to the Prime Minister.

While one Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa showed guts to dissent, the other two Commissioners did not find any thing wrong in Modi's speech at Chitradurga on April 9 which was similar to his Latur speech where he used Balakot air strike for political purposes.

Osmanabad District Election Officer objected to his provocative speech. The EC overruled it saying that Prime Minister did not seek vote for either his party or himself in this speech.

How blatantly the EC was wrong could be gazed by examining the Prime Minister's speech, saying, "I want to tell my first-time voters: Can your first vote be dedicated to the brave soldiers who carried out the air strike in Balakot in Pakistan?

I want to tell my first-time voters: Can your first vote be dedicated to the braves martyred in Pulwama? You are now 18 years old, and the country has given you a great deal … so your first vote should be for the nation… give your first vote to make a strong government, and I say to first time voters you will be able to say with pride, if you press the button on the lotus, or on the bow and arrow, then your vote is going directly into Modi's account…" The EC has deliberately blinded itself to his direct appeal to press button to lotus symbol.

On April 8, 66 former Civil Servants, some of whom are having experience in conducting elections, wrote to President that the EC was 'suffering from a crisis of credibility and endangering the integrity of the electoral process'. This was also sent to the EC.

They called it 'weak-kneed conduct' of the EC reducing it to an all-time-low. First Rule (of MCC General Conduct No1) of MCC, which is very frequently violated is:

"No party or candidate shall indulge in any activity which may aggravate existing differences or create mutual hatred or cause tension between different castes and communities, religious or linguistic."

The Representation of People Act codified it as an offence also. The Prime Minister says: "I am Hindu, Rahul Gandhi is for Muslims. You are Hindus, vote for me." Why was it not objected to?

It is not just one election that the EC has adversely affected, its inaction and questionable actions damage the institutional credibility and federal polity of the nation.

The EC should realise that the MCC means Model Code of Conduct and not Modi Code of Conduct.

(The writer is former Central Information Commissioner and Professor of Law, at Bennett University, Greater Noida)