The split in Samajwadi Party hogged the media headlines for almost a fortnight. Contrary to the general expectation of delay of several months, the commission decided the case in a record time. This quick decision was viewed by some as unprecedented. Some heckles were raised and motives attributed, but totally unfairly.
The Election Commission (EC) has indeed done a smart thing by deciding the case in quick time before the nominations were to begin. This was made possible by a situation of almost ‘no contest’. The breakaway faction, led by Akhilesh Yadav, went to the EC with letters of support of overwhelming majority of members—both in the organisation as well as the legislators.
The mother party, Samajwadi Party (SP), led by Mulayam Singh Yadav, did not present any letter of support at all, insisting that there was no split. This claim was, however, rejected by the EC on the basis of SP’s documents, one of which mentioned the existence of a splinter group. This was regarded by the EC as clear admission of a split.
The EC’s order is excellent and well-reasoned. As a practice, it always gives a detailed, speaking order which would stand judicial scrutiny. This is why the EC’s quasi judicial (or administrative) orders almost always pass the judicial test.
To find any reason other than supreme efficiency and correctness, would be grossly mischievous. The EC is one institution which has served the nation with integrity and aplomb without once letting it down. That is the reason why it enjoys complete credibility and trust of the nation like no other.
It is true that in the past disputes, it took several months to come to a decision. In all those cases, the two factions presented a list of supporters with their signatures. Sometimes, each faction challenged the genuineness of the list of the other. Verifying the signatures is a time-consuming process. Since it is a quasi-judicial process which inevitably brings in lawyers of both the sides, the process stretches over six to eight months.
The EC is the sole authority to decide the cases of split in national and state parties. Its power to decide the fate of the factions emanates from its Election Symbols Order, 1968, which had been held valid by the Supreme Court. It looks at the numbers supporting each faction—both in the organisation and the legislatures. In SP’s case, the Akhilesh faction produced documents of overwhelming support—almost 90 per cent—and super fast.
This was probably because of Prof Ram Gopal Yadav’s comprehensive knowledge of the election laws and procedures. He had been visiting the EC for all its cases for years. He was smart enough to obtain the required evidence and produce it before the EC at the first opportunity, giving his faction an unbeatable lead.
In the absence of any numbers claimed by the parent party, the EC had no problem in taking decisions. It was a virtual walkover and that is the easiest decision to take.
This was not the first time that EC was confronted with the case of a split in a party. It had been happening since 1964 when the first-ever split, of the Communist party into CPI and CPM, took place. Back then, the EC had no guidelines or precedents to fall back on. Using common sense, it gave its verdict through a notification.
Not long thereafter, the Commission decided to frame guidelines and issued the Election Symbols Order in 1968. In its very first case, thereafter, it applied the test of majority in the Congress party split. The Supreme Court upheld this principle which had been followed ever since. And it has never gone wrong.
syquraishi@gmail.com
S Y Quraishi Former chief election commissioner and author of An Undocumented Wonder—
The Making of the Great Indian Election