Protect citizens’ right to scrutinise all poll materials
The Centre recently tweaked an election rule, and the Election Commission of India saw nothing wrong with it. An angered opposition attacked both for curtailing transparency in the election process. The reference is to the Centre amending one of the Conduct of Election Rules of 1961 following a recommendation from the ECI—in effect, denying citizens access to video and CCTV footage of the election process. The commission argued that contestants can still access the visuals; but the issue is about denying the voter. The commission also insisted that easy access could compromise voter secrecy; but nobody records how the voter votes. Set aside these two contentions, and one question would remain: whether the amendment was in reaction to the Punjab and Haryana High Court directing the ECI to provide election process materials, including visuals, to a petitioner—a citizen, not a contestant—seeking them. There is no clarity on this yet.
Technically, the amendment does not close all doors to citizens. They can always approach the courts to access the restricted materials. However, the move falls short of the constitutional spirit by limiting the scope for public oversight. The move may also discourage people from scrutinising the ECI’s actions. The Congress said it would challenge the rule change because “transparency and openness are key factors” in ensuring free and fair elections—the spirit in which the high court gave its order.
Pressures the ECI faces in conducting India’s massive electoral exercises are well known and its efforts are appreciated. However, like Caesar’s wife, it must be above suspicion. Political parties repeatedly question its independence and often suspect it of colluding with the dispensation ruling at the Centre. The ECI cannot protect its credibility without erasing even the remotest appearance of a connection with the executive. For it to be independent of all interferences, it must derive unequivocal powers from the Constitution, including on the appointment and tenure of the commissioners. Currently, it derives some strength from judicial pronouncements. Constitutional jurisprudence must also rescue citizens. Their right to vote is not a fundamental right; but once they enter the booth and vote, their freedom of expression, a basic right, arises. Protecting this freedom means having a constitutional right to clarify doubts about the process by scrutinising any material, including footages.