Hard questions

For long the Election Commission has escaped a serious public/media/judicial scrutiny. Liberal praise has often been lavished on this constitutional body — deservingly most often — for conducting “free and fair” elections. But its apparent failure to curb the use of black money in elections or enforce the cap on election expenditure has been overlooked. The commission winks at poll code violations by top politicians. There is little enthusiasm to link cash/drug seizures with contesting candidates. Given its importance in the democratic setup, these are serious issues.

There is, however, reason for hope and cheer. The Supreme Court has caught the commission wanting in its contribution towards decriminalising politics. Constitutional bodies often zealously guard their territory but the poll panel has happily conceded its autonomy to the legislature. A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha on Wednesday subjected the poll panel to some tough questioning after it hesitated to take a stand on the plea to ban convicted politicians from contesting elections for life. In an earlier affidavit the commission had supported the idea of a lifetime ban but on Wednesday its counsel said the poll body was in favour of “decriminalisation of politics” without endorsing the plea for a lifetime ban and the issue was in the legislative domain. To this the Bench response rather amounted to a rebuke: “Can you afford to remain silent when it is within the domain of the commission? If you don’t want to be independent, if you want to be constrained by the legislature, constrained even to express your views, say so freely.” 

The commission’s affidavit had in fact gone a step further. It had backed the plea to bar convicts from forming political parties as well as becoming office-bearers of political parties. The climbdown in the commission’s stand has coincided with the recent change in its leadership. A few days ago the apex court had questioned the absence of a mechanism, a formal law or a panel to make the Election Commission appointments. It is welcome that some uncomfortable questions are now being asked. There are systemic loopholes and the functioning of the commission needs improvement, particularly its timid approach towards politicians.