Has the Election Commission (EC) become a pale shadow of its former self? This question is being asked by many, including former chief election commissioners, who argue for significant changes to help the EC maintain its authority and impartiality.
Consider this example shared by a former Chief Election Commissioner (CEC): In 2012, then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sought the Election Commission?s permission before visiting the Golden Temple in Amritsar during the Punjab assembly elections. Fast forward to a decade later, and the situation appears to have changed dramatically.
On April 21, at a rally in Rajasthan's Banswara, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a controversial statement. He claimed that if the Congress party were elected to power, it would distribute the country?s wealth to ?infiltrators? and ?those who have more children,? a remark interpreted by many as an attempt to create a divide between Hindus and Muslims. The Congress party quickly accused Modi of fostering communal tensions.
Despite the gravity of the situation, the Election Commission only acted four days later, on April 25, issuing notices to the BJP and Congress presidents based on complaints against Modi from the Opposition and against Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge from the ruling party. The EC did not name Modi or Gandhi directly but asked BJP President JP Nadda and Congress President Kharge for their ?comments? on alleged Model Code of Conduct violations by ?star campaigners.?
Nearly a month later, on May 22, the Election Commission finally directed BJP star campaigners to avoid communal speeches and instructed Opposition leaders to refrain from suggesting that the Constitution might be abolished if the BJP returned to power.
Former Chief Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa expressed his concern: ?It is a straightforward case. When constitutional authorities receive a complaint, they are duty-bound to act on it. Regarding hate speech at Banswara, they sent notices to the BJP, not to the Prime Minister. Without taking names or referring to designations, it may not be a bad idea to include the party without exempting the individual.?
Another former CEC, SY Quraishi, suggested that the impact would have been significant if the EC had simply banned the Prime Minister from campaigning for three days following his speech. ?Such an action would have been salutary,? Quraishi noted.
The delayed responses and perceived reluctance to hold powerful individuals accountable have led to growing calls for reform within the Election Commission. As the guardian of free and fair elections, the EC?s ability to act decisively and impartially is crucial for maintaining public trust in the electoral process. The current discourse suggests that without substantial changes, the EC?s authority may continue to be questioned, weakening the very foundation of India's democratic process.
