Empires and emperors come and go, but some institutions remain immortal. The Roman empire vanished in 476 CE, but Pax Romana became the basis of modern justice. King John died in 1216 CE, but the Magna Carta laid the foundation of democracy. The individuals in charge are mere mortals. As long as they have the keys, they can make or mar the image of credible institutions through inept and inappropriate methods.
The Election Commission of India’s (ECI) conduct over the past few weeks exemplifies such a degradation. It is being charged with delaying decisions, minimising transparency of data and ignoring genuine complaints by various candidates, especially from the opposition. Last week, it had mud on its face for taking almost 11 days to post the final polling numbers of voters in the first phase. The data didn’t follow the precedential pattern and just gave the percentage of votes cast instead of constituency-wise details. Suspiciously, the final numbers vastly differ from the figures released by the ECI after the day of polling.
The past has seen such delays, but this time the formatting and method was dodgy. In this digital age, when data can travel a million times faster than political volte-faces, the ECI’s slow pace was abhorrent to even the most conservative pollsters and intellectuals. After all, it will decide the ruling party after June 2024. Despite unlimited money, resources and technology at its disposal, the ECI, in its wisdom, extended the election to seven phases in spite of the expected heat wave.
Once upon a time, the ECI earned worldwide admiration for conducting elections in which over 100 crore voters in 543 constituencies decided their representatives. Except during the 1970s, Indian elections have by and large been fair and peaceful. The ECI faced political ire but its verdict was finally accepted by all the candidates. But no more. The ECI is their principal target, more than their political adversaries. It’s not performance, but the perception that the ECI is controlled and directed by the BJP that has become its nemesis.
The commission is basking in the glory of a record seizure of unaccounted money and drugs—almost Rs 100 crore a day since January. Yet its administrative initiatives, including fixing the election schedule and taking punitive and preemptive actions against contestants who habitually flout the Model Code of Conduct, are dubious at best. All three election commissioners have impeccable track records. The current CEC, Rajiv Kumar, an 1984 batch IAS officer of the Jharkhand cadre, was previously the Union finance secretary. He is credited with turning around the banking sector and introducing impactful financial reforms. The other two, IAS officers Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Gyanesh Kumar, are closely associated with the Modi government’s infrastructure push and Home Minister Amit Shah. Kumar was one of the key members of the home ministry team that worked on the secret exercise for the abolition of Article 370. However, the manner and suddenness of their appointments have led to myriad controversies.
The Election Commission has become a sumptuous post-retirement habitat for random civil servants whose main credentials are loyalty to the establishment; their meritorious achievements are today the exception, not the rule. The ECI started life on a moral high ground when the reputed ICS officer Sukumar Sen was appointed to conduct the first Lok Sabha election and then the second one. Since then, 24 more chief election commissioners have occupied the exalted seat. Four from the ICS, 15 from the IAS, two from the IRS, one woman politician and two eminent constitutional legal eminences, Nagendra Singh and S L Shakdhar.
The ECI’s reputation was tarnished after politics superseded merit. For example, after V P Singh’s government fell on November 7, 1990, V S Ramadevi, an advocate from Andhra Pradesh, was appointed the first female CEC on November 26, 1990. For inexplicable reasons, in two weeks she was replaced by the feisty T N Seshan. The shenanigans that followed after his stringent actions against electoral violations politicised the institution. Seshan imposed all legally available restrictions on candidates. High-voltage campaigns ground to a halt. For the first time, the government approached the Supreme Court seeking curbs on the CEC’s powers.
The then-Prime Minister Narasimha Rao converted the ECI into a three-member commission and gave each one equal power. Leading a minority government, he couldn’t alter the provision for the CEC’s dismissal, which says removal is only possible through a parliamentary resolution. Interestingly, while only the House can impeach the CEC, the authority to remove an election commissioner rests with the CEC—the president may or may not accept the recommendation. This makes the other members vulnerable. They would fall in line.
Converting the ECI into a multi-member body caused internal conflicts between the members. For example, in January 2009, CEC N Gopalaswami wrote to the president recommending the removal of his colleague Naveen Chawla. He accused Chawla of partisanship by overtly supporting the Congress. Gopalaswami was the home secretary during the previous NDA government and considered close to the Sangh parivar. The Manmohan Singh administration rejected the recommendation and Chawla became the CEC afterwards.
Since then, successive governments have acquired the regressive reputation of packing the institution with individuals ideologically or personally aligned with the ruling party. Over the past 12 years, various governments have chosen retired or service-inactive babus. The current controversy stems from the fact that the two new members were about to retire or already hung their boots. They were chosen just a day before the elections were announced.
The truth is, no political party wishes to abdicate control over the CEC’s selection. Even after the Supreme Court ruled that the government must establish a credible panel for selecting election commissioners, the NDA government defiantly dropped the Chief Justice of India from the panel and retained its majority clout. Such discretionary power enables the sarkar to handpick people who pass the twin test of pliability and compatibility.
It is tragic that even prominent and eminent constitutional writers couldn’t anticipate the misuse of the ECI by any ruling party. The Constitution has no provision for an independent selection mechanism for them, unlike in many other world democracies. For example, even the omnipotent president of the US can’t appoint the mandated half a dozen federal election commissioners without the Senate’s advice and consent.
Since it is impossible to change the Indian system, it’s the ECI’s duty to protect its own credibility and acceptability. India has seen a vast increase in voter turnout. From 58.21 percent in 2009, it has risen to 67.40 percent under Modi. Going by the public perception that the prime minister is set for a record hat-trick, any doubtful and unjustifiable exercise by the ECI would not only raise doubts over the projected triumph but would also sound the death knell for yet another distinguished institution of Indian democracy. An election won with numbers must also be won with hearts. Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion. Or else, the next meme on the Election Commission could read Election Omission.
prabhu chawla
prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com
Follow him on X @PrabhuChawla