Inspiring confidence empowers

Update: 2025-02-27 10:03 IST
Inspiring confidence empowers
  • whatsapp icon

The Election Commission as well as the Government of India need to realise that it is their sacred duty to respect the rich traditions set in the past by distinguished CECs of uprightness and unswerving devotion to the cause of preserving; of protecting the autonomy and independence of the Commission. Their conduct and approach should be informed by staunch devotion to the public interest. It is essential that constitutional functionaries should not only be efficient, public interest driven, just and impartial, in their actions and conduct, but also clearly give the impression of being so

Regularconduct of free, fair and impartial elections is a key feature of a democracy. The Constitution of India stipulates that the function of conduct of elections, to Parliament and the State Legislatures in the country, be vested in the Election Commission (EC), which comprises the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), and as many other Election Commissioners (EC)s as fixed by the President of India.

The EC is an important constitutional institution, and a part of the framework of governance contemplated by the Constitution of India.

Before 2023, the Union Minister of Law moved the proposal for the appointments, of the CEC and ECs, through the Prime Minister to the President. Then came the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners Appointment Act 2023, which provided that a Selection Committee (SC) be comprised of the Prime Minister (PM), a Union Cabinet Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (LoP), in the Lok Sabha. Five names, to be placed before the (SC) for consideration, will be suggested by a Search Committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary to the government of India.

While examining the issue of these appointments, the Supreme Court, in 2023, observed that they should not be done solely by the executive, and directed that they be made by the President on the recommendation made by a (SC) Committee comprising the PM, the LoP in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India (CJI), until such time as Parliament introduces a law to that effect.

The 2023 Act, however, brought in the present dispensation instead. The Act has recently been challenged in the Supreme Court. The case has been adjourned to 19 March.

Meanwhile, the SC met and approved the selection of Gyanesh Kumar as the CEC and Vivek Joshi as another EC. Rahul Gandhi, a member of the SC, in his capacity as the LoP in the Lok Sabha, expressed dissent in that meeting, feeling that the process of selection, which excluded the CJI from the Committee, was disrespectful and discourteous.

Criticising the decision, Tejashwi Yadav, leader of the Rashtriya Janata Dal Party, claimed that the EC had been reduced to the status of a ‘cheerleader’ for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. “The umpire of a match between two teams”, he claimed, should be “neutral.”

As regards the observation of the Supreme Court, it is worth noting that the Collegium of the Supreme Court has no member from outside the judiciary.

Other constitutional functionaries, such as the Comptroller and Auditor general of India, the Chairperson of the Union Public Service Commission, the Chairperson of the Finance Commission are, after all, appointed by the President, only based on the recommendation of the Government of India. Neither a Selection Committee nor a Search Committee existed, in earlier times, when the likes of T N Seshan and J M Lyngdoh were chosen. And they were men of sterling character and conduct, known for their impeccable integrity and outstanding performance.

In other words, the validity of the appointment cannot be called into question merely because the observation of the Supreme Court has not been followed.

In recent times, the attitude of the EC, and its relationship with the Government of India, have failed to inspire confidence. For example, in the matter of verifying the burnt memory and Symbol Loading Units of electronic voting machines, the Supreme Court had to step in, and stop the process, signaling its intent to ensure that the procedures remained tamper-proof and credible. However, when an application was filed before it, seeking a direction to the Commission to publish booth-wise absolute numbers of voter’s turn out, the Court rightly declined to interfere with the election process while it was on.

In this context, I recall a couple of experiences, from the days when I was in service. General elections were being held and I was the Sub Collector at Ongole in Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh. I was also the Returning Officer for Parchur Assembly segment. In a fiercely fought election, marked by violent incidents, the candidate of the ruling Congress-I party, and another candidate were locked in a close contest. As counting of the votes was on, the ruling party candidate, who was in a hospital in Guntur town following injuries sustained in a clash, requested for a recount, as provided in the Electoral Law, as, usual when counting had concluded – he trailed by 250 out of a total of about 50,000 votes.

Curbing the normal impulse to agree with the request, I took a dispassionate review of the procedure followed and the arrangements made. In regard to the number of tables, the number of counting assistants and supervisors, the presence of agents of both parties at every table and at the counting hall, the instructions of the EC had all been more than followed. Also the Assistant Returning Officers, and I had exceeded prescribed percentage of checking. All disputed ballot papers had also seen duly settled, as per the prescribed procedure.

The question was not whether the result was accurate, but whether it had emerged from the procedure laid down. The RO, after all, organises the counting, and does not, himself, count the votes! Feeling that all that was enquired had been done, I duly rejected the request for a recount, through a speaking order, spelling out the reasons.

Mr X challenged the result in the High Court, where a recount was ordered. And the ruling party candidate polled even less votes! The position I had taken stood vindicated.

After my training at the National Academy of Administration, I was posted as an Assistant Collector (under training), in Krishna district of Andhra Pradesh state, my parent cadre. Even as a green horn, a rookie, as a matter of fact, I had to conduct elections to the Gram Panchayats and to the office of the President of the Panchayat Samiti (PPS), the Samiti then being second rung of the three-tier district Panchayati Raj system, now called a Mandal as the Block Development Officer, and the Returning Officer for that election. Elections to the primary level, namely, the Gram Panchayats, had gone off peacefully and, on the day appointed, for the election of the PPS, I, watched, with disbelief and amazement, as vehicle after vehicle arrived, carrying the Sarpanches who were the voters. All being brought back, I was told, from a ‘camp’ stashed away in a posh hotel, somewhere in Kashmir, immune from overtures from the opposing party! Baptism, by fire, for me!

In conclusion, one observes that constitutional functionaries should not only be efficient, public interest driven, just and impartial, in their actions and conduct, but also clearly give the impression of being so. Justice, after all, should not only be done, but also seen to be done! And Caesar’s wife should remain beyond suspicion.

Most political parties today lack internal democracy. Until it has set its house in order, no party can lay claim to the credentials needed to hold forth to other parties about the upholding the values of democratic principles. There is this Telugu proverb, which says “win at home before you attempt to do so outside.”

The EC as well as the Government of India need to realise that it is their sacred duty to respect the rich traditions set in the past by distinguished CECs of uprightness and unswerving devotion to the cause of preserving; of protecting the autonomy and independence of the Commission. Their conduct and approach should be informed by staunch devotion to the public interest.

Instead of the usual in-context joke, which I offer at the end of my piece, I present this time, instead, the following story, probably apocryphal, for the readers’ amusement.

Apparently, Maurice Chevalier, the famous French movie actor, had once invited the legendary horror movie director, Alfred Hitchcock, to dinner. After the meal, and upon being asked by the host what he would like to drink, Hitchcock wryly replied, “I do not relish a drink on an empty stomach!”

(The writer was formerly Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh)

Tags:    

Similar News