Poonam Sharma
In an era where the Election Commission of Bharat often finds itself amidst swirling controversies, a fascinating development has unfolded after the lok sabha elections 2024: the surprising silence of opposition parties on the topic of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). Once the perennial scapegoats for every electoral defeat, EVMs have mysteriously slipped out of the crosshairs of political critics.
Gone are the days when every lost seat was attributed to the nefarious workings of these digital devices. EVMs were vilified as the malevolent architects of electoral fraud, manipulating outcomes from behind the scenes. But now, those same critics have fallen unusually quiet. Have they perhaps discovered an unexpected fondness for these machines, or is it simply that the political winds have shifted, blowing away the convenience of old accusations?
Credit must be given where it’s due: the Election Commission has deftly navigated these turbulent waters. Their efforts have not only quelled the clamor around EVMs but also ensured an election remarkably free of or less violence. This feat is no small achievement. In a landscape often marred by unrest, the reduction in violence stands as a testament to the Commission’s dedication to fair and secure electoral processes.
One can’t help but ponder this transformation. Has the Election Commission’s steadfast commitment to transparency and security finally borne fruit? Or is it that the opposition, perhaps weary of their own repetitive narratives, has chosen new battlegrounds? Regardless, this period of relative tranquility and muted criticism marks a notable shift.
As we observe this newfound calm, it’s worth contemplating the implications. The Election Commission, once a lightning rod for blame, now enjoys a rare moment of reprieve. Is this a lasting change, or merely the calm before another storm? For now, let’s appreciate this interlude, a brief respite in the ever-dynamic theater of Indian democracy.
The Election Commission of India (ECI), established on January 25, 1950, by the Constitution, stands as a sentinel of democracy. Empowered to ensure free and fair elections, the ECI’s evolution from a single-member body to a three-member commission in 1989 marks a significant chapter in India’s democratic journey. But in the face of contemporary challenges, is the ECI truly living up to its mandate, or is it becoming a silent spectator in the political arena?
Tasked with administering elections to the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, state legislative assemblies, and councils, as well as the offices of the President and Vice President, the ECI’s role is undeniably crucial. It oversees electoral rolls, candidate nominations, political party registration, election campaigns, and dispute resolution. Additionally, it enforces the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), ensuring a level playing field.
However, the real question is whether these powers are sufficient to counter the formidable challenges posed by India’s dynamic political landscape. Can the ECI, despite its constitutional backing, truly ensure impartiality when political pressures loom large?
The ECI’s authority to dismiss partial officers underscores its commitment to impartiality. Yet, exercising this power often invites political backlash.Despite its constitutional mandate and independence, the ECI faces significant challenges, especially in high-stakes elections. A decade ago, Mamata Banerjee’s vehement opposition to the transfer of officials in West Bengal is a case in point, reflecting a recurring pattern of dissatisfaction among political leaders across states and there are enough cases to substantiate .
The “4Ms”—muscle power, money power, misinformation, and mayhem—pose significant threats to electoral integrity. Allegations of rigging, violence, and electoral malpractices, particularly in states like West Bengal, raise serious concerns. Despite deploying additional security and adopting stringent measures, the ECI’s struggle against these elements continues.
How can the ECI better equip itself to combat these deeply entrenched issues? Is there a need for more radical reforms to ensure elections are genuinely free and fair, or are we merely treating the symptoms without addressing the root causes?
Electoral reforms should be at the forefront when individuals with dubious backgrounds or separatist agendas can win elections. Shouldn’t it be mandatory for candidates to have a clean character record? Promising lucrative schemes or outright cash payments to voters fundamentally undermines the essence of democracy. The Election Commission must be empowered to bar candidates engaged in such practices. Implementing stringent laws and legal reforms is crucial to fortify the Election Commission’s authority and uphold the integrity of our electoral system.Should the ECI not enforce stricter qualifications for candidates, ensuring they possess integrity and a clean track record? The prohibition and banning of vote-buying schemes and financial inducements should be paramount. Can democracy thrive when such practices are not only allowed but sometimes go unchecked?
Electoral bonds were introduced to enhance transparency in political funding, yet they have sparked debates about donor anonymity and unaccounted money influencing elections. While the ECI mandates the declaration of contributions, the opacity surrounding electoral bonds remains contentious.
Is financial transparency in elections a realistic goal, or is it an idealistic vision? How can the ECI balance donor privacy with the need for accountability, ensuring that financial power does not undermine democratic processes?
Embracing technology, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has introduced initiatives like the cVIGIL app, allowing citizens to report Model Code of Conduct (MCC) violations in real-time. These innovations mark a significant step towards better governance and swift action against malpractices. Yet, technology alone cannot solve deep-rooted issues.
In the recent 2024 elections, viral videos surfaced showing polling officers assisting voters in pressing the button to cast their votes. This practice raises serious concerns about the integrity of the voting process and underscores the need for continued vigilance and stricter enforcement of electoral norms to ensure that every vote is cast freely and independently.
Can technological advancements truly bridge the gap in ensuring electoral integrity, or are they mere tools that require a robust framework to be effective? How can the ECI leverage technology to address the broader challenges of electoral malpractices?
The independence of the Election Commission of India (ECI) is a cornerstone of a robust democracy, but can it truly be assured given the current mechanisms of appointment and tenure for the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs)? While the CEC enjoys protection akin to that of Supreme Court judges, ensuring a degree of insulation from political influence, ECs are protected only under the umbrella of the CEC, lacking equivalent safeguards for their conditions of service. This disparity raises important questions about the potential for political interference.
Article 324(5) of the Constitution mandates that ECs cannot be removed except upon the recommendation of the CEC. However, a notable exception occurred in the case of S.S. Dhanoa v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court upheld the removal of an Election Commissioner via Presidential notification, effectively rescinding the post. This precedent highlights the political vulnerability of ECs, which could, in turn, influence the ECI’s functioning. If ECs align on an issue, they can overrule the CEC, potentially swaying decisions in favor of the ruling party.
Such structural weaknesses invite scrutiny: are these appointments truly impartial, or do they risk bias in favor of the political executive? The ECI has witnessed fiercely independent CECs, like T.N. Seshan, who took bold actions to curb electoral malpractices. Yet, such figures are exceptions rather than the norm, often overshadowed by politically pliant candidates.
Currently, the CEC and ECs are appointed by the President on the advice of the Cabinet, as per the Transaction of Business Rules, 1961. In contrast, appointments for roles like the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) involve a high-powered committee, including the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India or his nominee, and the Leader of the Opposition. Why then is a similar procedure not adopted for the ECI, given its critical role in ensuring free and fair elections?
Former CECs and various reform reports have advocated for a more independent appointment process. The Supreme Court is set to examine whether the current process aligns with the vision of an impartial ECI as outlined in Article 324. Could this herald a shift towards greater transparency and independence in appointments?
If the possibility of leaning towards one political party exists, should not the appointment process itself be robust enough to withstand such pressures? The argument for a high-powered committee to oversee these appointments seems compelling, ensuring that the ECI remains a bulwark of democracy, free from undue influence.
As we ponder these questions, the need for reforms becomes evident. Is it not time for a procedural overhaul to safeguard the independence of the ECI, thereby fortifying the democratic framework of India? The future of fair and impartial elections may well depend on the answers we find to these pressing issues.
Conclusion: A Call to Reflect
The Election Commission of India’s role as the custodian of democracy is indisputable. Yet, the pressing question remains: is it equipped to face the evolving challenges of the political landscape? The ECI’s journey reflects both achievements and ongoing struggles, raising crucial questions about its capacity to safeguard democratic principles. As India marches forward, the need for introspection and reform within the ECI becomes more apparent. In an age where misinformation and political pressures threaten to erode democratic foundations, can the ECI rise to the occasion and ensure that the will of the people prevails? The answers to these questions will define the future of democracy in Bharat, making it imperative for stakeholders, policymakers, and citizens alike to engage in a thoughtful discourse on the path ahead.
About Author-:
Mrs Poonam Sharma is a prolific Writer ,Poet,Speaker,Historian on Contemporary Socio Political Issues. She is also associated with rewriting the Bhartiya History. She lives in Guwahati,Assam,Bharat and is also a Consulting Editor of a News portal and Channel.
Comments are closed.