How ‘weak’ is the Election Commission?

The evidence must have been compelling to force the Election Commission of India to order a probe into allegations that six million duplicate voters have been included in the voters’ lists in Madhya Pradesh. The EC took the decision on a Sunday and hours after a Congress delegation comprising the PCC president Kamal Nath, Jyotiraditya Scindia and others submitted a memorandum. But even before the two probe teams constituted by the EC and given four days to report back with its findings could start their work, sources within the Commission were quoted expressing doubts whether the number of duplicate voters could really be as high as six million.

The ‘doubts’ expressed by sources within the EC suggest that it is disposed to dismiss the allegation as exaggerated. There is every possibility of the issue getting buried with probe reports confirming some discrepancies, following which the EC would possibly come up with a statement saying that orders had been given to delete the names found to have been duplicated in the lists. One also suspects that the Election Commission, like ministries and government departments do, would take pains to assure the people that discrepancies were inadvertent, minor in nature and the number not as large as had been claimed.

Allegations of faulty voters’ lists are not new. In every election there have been complaints that while genuine voters found their names to be missing, names of voters who were either dead or who had left the locality long ago are found to have been retained.

Now, despite voters being required to have photo identity cards, there are allegations that a large number of people (with the same address, photograph and name of father or spouse) have been enrolled several times in the same booth, in adjacent or distant polling booths and even in adjacent constituencies. The Congress delegation in fact claimed that a large number of names were found enrolled in adjacent states, presumably with a different address but with their own photographs and other details remaining the same.

Voter list discrepancy not an accident

Even if the number of discrepancies is found to be much less, say one million instead of six, this obviously cannot be an accident; nor can there be an innocent explanation for such discrepancies. It has to be a part of a deliberate mischief involving government employees and supervisors. The Congress delegation has rightly demanded that the EC must fix responsibility and identify the supervisors and officers under whose watch the mischief was committed. And although this amounts to a criminal act calling for suitable punishment, the Election Commission of India is clearly too weak and compromised to take the logical step.

One wonders why the EC cannot take the help of college and university students above the age of 18 for enrolling voters and also for polling. It would provide young voters with invaluable training and arm them with insights. They would also arguably be much less susceptible to pressures exerted by caste, money or politics.

Rather than rely upon government employees at lower ladders to verify and revise electoral rolls, it might actually be a better idea to identify local agencies and entrust them with the task. Gram Panchayats, municipal commissions or even the Resident Welfare Committees can be roped in for the task and made accountable for glaring acts of omission and commission. The arrangement would save the Election Commission a lot of bother and the threat of a prison term would perhaps work much better at the local level and prevent misuse of the exercise.

Paradoxically, the Election Commission of India has prided itself for being strong, independent and efficient. And with some caveats, rightly so. Conducting elections in this vast and diverse country where the spoken language changes after a couple of hundred kilometers, was never easy. But the ECI, to its credit, has managed a large number of elections since 1952 and conducted them reasonably well.

However, the Election Commission of India is guilty of having deluded itself and the people at large about the degree of independence it enjoys. All political parties and the Indian Parliament and successive governments must share the responsibility for keeping the EC tied to the apron strings of the Government.

Why were the Law Commission recommendations ignored?

No satisfactory explanation has ever been forthcoming on why recommendations made by the Law Commission, the Dinesh Goswami Committee, the Indrajit Gupta Committee and even the EC for more power to the Commission were ignored. Indeed, a Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha in 1990 to make far-reaching changes to make the Election Commission more independent. But it was withdrawn by the Government in 1994 and it lapsed in 1996. It was never re-introduced.

Three basic demands of the EC have been ignored by the political establishment. The EC has been demanding financial independence on the lines of the CAG and has been asking that its expenses be charged to the Consolidated Fund of India. That would have reduced the Commission’s dependence on the Government for funds. The EC has also been asking for an independent secretariat so as to reduce the influence and interference of the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) under the Prime Minister’s Office in matters of appointment and promotion. Finally, the EC has been demanding the authority to make rules related to elections.

A more independent EC would, for example, have clamped down on expenses incurred by friends, supporters, relatives and political party of the candidates and included them as part of election expenditure. But the Government and the Parliament have made a mockery of the ceiling on election expenditure by confining it to expenses incurred by the candidate alone.

There has been growing interference by the present NDA government in the functioning of the EC. The Modi government delayed sanctioning funds for Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT), turned down the proposal to use Totalisers for simultaneously counting votes polled in 14 booths and arm-twisted the ECI into giving its consent to simultaneous Lok Sabha and Assembly elections. The then Chief Election Commissioner HS Brahma went on record in 2015 to note that the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister Nripendra Mishra had told him that holding too many elections was disruptive and cost money. The outrage caused by the most powerful bureaucrat in the country was unfortunately short-lived.

The last four years have shown over and over again how weak and helpless the EC actually is. It can bark but not bite. It has been unable to ensure a level playing field. It has failed to curb fake news and money-power. It has not been able to prevent the Prime Minister from flouting restrictions and campaigning on even polling days. And it has not been able to stop the live broadcast of political rallies on TV channels on polling days.

It is for the opposition now to pledge more power to the Election Commission and make the commitment for an independent and powerful Commission in their manifestos.