Election Commission of India
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. Readers will be able to edit existing articles and post new articles directly |
Contents |
Clashes of EC: with govt, within EC
1989-2009
From the archives of "India Today"
1989: Rajiv Gandhi expands the EC by handpicking two members. Commits impropriety by announcing poll dates.
1990: V.P. Singh sacks two election commissioners saying they were partisan. S.S. Dhanoa challenges removal in the SC. Appeal is rejected.
1993: Narasimha Rao expands EC to rein in T.N. Seshan who approached SC. Apex Court upholds order. In Dhanoa and Seshan cases, court treats the commissioners as equals but says CEC had powers to recommend their removal. Battle renewed
2005: BJP objects to Chawla’s elevation as election commissioner, claiming he was partial to the Congress.
2006-07: Chawla and Gopalaswami lock horns over poll dates for Uttar Pradesh and Chawla’s decision to consult the MEA on Sonia Gandhi accepting a Belgian honour.
2008: CEC sends notice asking Chawla why he should not be sacked for being partisan. Finds Chawla’s reply unsatisfactory.
2009: Gopalaswami recommends to the President that Chawla be dismissed
Election commissioners, selection of
Debates in Constituent Assembly, 1949; subsequent changes
Right from the time the Constitution was being finalised through debates in the Constituent Assembly in 1949, there has been unanimity that elections must be insulated from executive interference.
The Fundamental Rights Committee had recommended recognising “independence of elections and the avoidance of any interference by the executive in the elections to the legislatures“ as a fundamental right. But, after long debate, the Constituent Assembly , in the words of B R Ambedkar, resolved that “while there was no objection to regard the matter as of fundamental importance, it should be provided for in some other part of the Constitution and not in the chapter dealing with fundamental rights“.
The original draft Constitu tion had provided that the chief election commissioner and election commissioners would be appointed by the President.Many members had expressed reservations over giving unbridled powers to the PM to choose a person of his choice as the CEC. They felt such a personalised selection process was sure to impede the independence of the commission.
This had forced Ambedkar to amend the original draft provision. The amended version, which is now Article 324(2), said, “The Election Commission shall consist of the CEC and such number of other election commissioners, if any, as the President may from time to time fix and the appointment of CEC and other election commissioners shall, subject to the provisions of any law made in that behalf by Parliament, be made by the President.“
`Subject to law made by Parliament' was inserted to keep the doors open for devising a suitable mechanism in future. For four decades, the EC was a single-member body with the CEC as its head. From October 16, 1989 till January 1, 1990, it became a three-member body . From January 2, 1990, when T N Seshan became CEC, and up to September 30, 1993, it again became a singlemember commission.
For decades, the commission was subservient to the ruling party -in fixing poll schedule and blinking at electoral malpractices. Seshan changed it all. He gradually assumed grotesque independence and recklessly cracked the `model code of conduct' whip. He refused all requests from the ruling party, even for postponement of bye-elections involving Sharad Pa war and Pranab Mukherjee.
An upset government brought an ordinance in 1993 to rein in the “too independent“ CEC. It appointed two more election commissioners and gave them equal status with that of the CEC. An angry Seshan challenged the validity of the ordinance in the Supreme Court. A five-judge bench rebuffed Seshan [1995 (4) SCC 611] and upheld appo intment of the two ECs.
In the past, the SC had never commented on the process for selection and appointment of CEC and ECs. In 2006, then CEC B Tandon had written to then President A P J Abdul Kalam proposing a sevenmember collegium headed by the PM for selection of CEC and ECs. The other members in the proposed collegium were Lok Sabha Speaker, law mi nister, leaders of opposition in LS and RS, an SC judge nominated by the CJI and deputy chairman of RS.
Three years later, then CEC N Gopalaswami wrote to then President Pratibha Patil proposing a six-member collegium headed by the PM for selection of CEC and ECs. the collegium proposed by Gopalaswami excluded the SC judge. Both Tandon and Gopalaswami had said such collegiums were in action for selection of central vigilance commissioner and chairman and members of National Human Rights Commission. When Navin Chawla was set to become the CEC, BJP leaders L K Advani and Arun Jaitley had whole-heartedly supported the concept of a collegium for selection of the CEC and ECs.
Last week, the SC picked the threads from the ex-CECs' letters and asked the government, “The President appoints the CEC and ECs. The Constitution says it will be subject to any law enacted by Parliament. But till date, no law has been enacted. In such a scenario, in the absence of a law and till Parliament legislates on this issue, would it not be appropriate to institutionalise the appointment process by laying down certain norms?“ Maintaining independence of the CEC and ECs and keeping them free from political masters was the main object behind the SC's query .The NDA government opposed and said, “Rightly or wrongly , Parliament has decided not to enact a law. If Parliament says there is no need for a law, can the Supreme Court step into the legislative arena and attempt to fill the perceived gaps which do not exist? This will be improper on the part of the court.“
Given the earlier statements of Advani and Jaitley , the NDA government may not have difficulty in drafting a bill for introduction in Parliament. But the government and the SC must remember the golden words of caution uttered by K M Munshi in the Constituent Assembly on independence of the EC, which he felt would have a large army of officials given the enormity of the task entrusted to it.
“Now, all this army cannot be set up as a machinery independent of the government. It is not possible nor advisable to have a kingdom within a kingdom, so that election matters could be left to an entirely independent organ of the government. A machinery , so independent, cannot be allowed to sit as a kind of super-government to decide which government shall come to power. There will be great political danger if the Election Commission becomes such a political power in the country .“
Model code violations
2010-12
[Bharti Jain, ‘Selective amnesia’: EC rebuts ex-CEC on its handling of hate speech, February 14, 2020: The Times of India]
S Y Quraishi
led EC from 2010 to 2012, had in an opinion piece published in a daily on February 8, 2020, wondered why EC had stopped short of filing FIRs against Union minister Anurag Thakur and BJP MP Parvesh Verma under Representation of the People Act (RP Act) or Section 153 of IPC for hate speech despite finding them “guilty of offences deserving punishment” under Section 123 and 125 of RP Act. He, however, appreciated EC’s decision to drop the two from BJP’s list of star campaigners and temporarily bar them from campaigning.
In a reply sent to Quraishi on February 13, 2020 — a copy of which is with TOI — deputy election commissioner Sandeep Saxena put on record each of the model code violation proceedings undertaken during Quraishi’s own term. “It would be seen from the enclosed list that no action was taken by the then Commission during this period under Sections 123 and 125 of RP Act 1951/153 of IPC 1860,” he pointed out.
EC cites nine notices issued for polls during Quraishi’s term
EC cited the nine showcause notices issued for elections held between July 30, 2010 and June 10, 2012, coinciding with Quraishi’s term. While five notices were issued in 2012 UP poll, three in 2011 West Bengal poll, two in 2011 Tamil Nadu poll and one in 2010 Bihar poll. As per final outcome of these cases, advisories were issued in five, warning issued in two and remaining two cases closed. No directions were issued to lodge FIR in any of the cases.
No model code of conduct notices were issued during polls in Assam, Kerala, Puducherry, Goa, Manipur and Uttarakhand in the relevant period.
Citing the notice issued to then law minister Salman Khurshid for announcing 9% reservation for minorities within 27% OBC quota during UP poll, EC recalled that he was subsequently censured. Khurshid later reiterated the announcement, after which EC wrote to President seeking his intervention. Khurshid finally regretted his statements before EC, after which latter decided not to take further action.
EC also issued a notice to BSP’s S C Mishra in 2012 for his repeated references to Dalit-Brahmin political combination. Though Mishra did not reply, EC took a lenient view and merely hoped Mishra would be more careful in the future. Another notice went to former Union minister Beni Prasad Verma for making promises to Muslims, but after he regretted the same, EC did not press for further action. Even then Union minister Sri Prakash Jaiswal received an EC notice for threatening President’s rule in UP. Jaiswal claimed his statement was distorted and EC concluded there was no threat of intimidation of votes.
In West Bengal poll in 2011, CPM’s Anil Basu had made obscene remarks against Trinamool chief Mamata Banerjee.EC only conveyed its severe displeasure and warned him to be more careful in the future.
Reforms, proposed and actual
Govt thwarts EC bid to bar utility bill defaulters
Govt thwarts EC bid to bar utility bill defaulters, October 9, 2017: The Times of India
The government has rejected a proposal from the Election Commission (EC) to amend the Representation of the People Act to bar candidates from contesting parliamentary or assembly elections if they have not cleared their dues such as house rent in government accommodation, electricity and water bills.
The EC had in a communication to the law ministry requested amending the election laws to include failure to clear dues of public utilities as a disqualification from contesting Lok Sabha and assembly polls.
Barring candidates will require amendment to Chapter III of the RP Act which deals with electoral offences. A new clause will have to be inserted therein for disqualification “on the ground of being a defaulter of public dues“.
However, in its response to the election watchdog, the law ministry had said the proposal was “not desirable“. According to the law ministry , the ban would not be desirable as the authority issuing no-dues certificate or no-objection certificate to a candidate could be biased and may not give the required papers.
The ministry also said in cases of dispute on the dues, the matter could be referred to a court and may take time to settle. In such cases, it would not be desirable to deny the candidate with the nodues certificate.
In July , 2015 the Delhi High Court had through an order asked the EC to “consider the possibility , if any, of putting any impediment to a defaulter of public dues contesting election, to ensure quick recovery of the said dues“.
Based on the judgment, the commission had recently made it mandatory for candidates contesting polls to furnish a `no-dues certificate' from the agency providing electricity, water and telephone connections to their accommodation.
This led to some candidates missing filing their nomination papers in the recent assembly polls as they had failed to get the required no-dues certificate. There was, however, no legal backing to such instructions from the EC.
See also
Chief Election Commissioners Of India
Election Commission of India
Election laws, rules. procedures: India
Elections in India: behaviour and trends (2014)
Elections in India: behaviour and trends (historical)
