EC row: Dissent, if any, has to be respected, not frowned upon

By Satya Prakash

In the midst of General Election, the Election Commission is hitting headlines for wrong reasons. Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa’s letter to Chief Election Commissioner Sunil Arora that he was being forced to stay away from the meetings of the Full Commission as “minority decisions” were not being recorded raises serious questions about its functioning.

Arora’s statement that members of the poll panel were not supposed to be “clones” of each other and divergence of views was natural can be seen as an attempt to defuse the tension within the commission. He termed the entire episode as “unsavoury” and “avoidable”.

The developments in the Election Commission allude to a larger problem of crisis of credibility which Indian institutions are faced with. First, it was the Supreme Court in January 2018 when four senior-most judges held a press conference during court hours at the residence of Justice J Chelameswar (since retired) against the then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, exposing serious differences among the judges.

Then came the infighting in the Central Bureau of Investigation between its then Director Alok Verma and then Special Director Rakesh Asthana, which forced the government to take an unprecedented decision of sending both of them on leave in October 2018. While the Supreme Court and the CBI try to grapple with the crisis of credibility, the infighting in the Election Commission has added a new dimension to it.

This is not for the first time that the poll panel has witnessed infighting. In 1993, when the PV Narasimha Rao Government appointed MS Gill and GVG Krishnamurthy as Election Commissioners to make the poll panel a multi-member body, the then Chief Election Commissioner TN Seshan didn’t take kindly to the decision. Things turned so ugly that Krishnamurthy’s room was locked and the telephone wire snapped, forcing him to complain to the President. That was the time when Seshan was acting allegedly like an autocrat.

However, the situation is different today as the poll panel faces allegations of going soft on top political functionaries while enforcing the Model Code of Conduct. Whatever importance one may give to MCC, the fact remains that it’s just an understanding between the Election Commission and political parties, without there being any statutory backing.

It’s for this reason that most of the decisions of the Election Commission on MCC were based on Article 324 of the Constitution which confers power of superintendence, direction and control of elections on the Commission and not under the Representation of People Act that provides for detailed procedures for conduct of elections in India.

In fact, whenever the poll panel wants to take any decision which is not supported by the Representation of People Act, it invokes Article 324 which has been described as reservoir of its powers.

That’s why of late the Commission has been invoking its powers under Article 324 quite often, the cancellation of Lok Sabha polls in Vellore constituency was a an example of such action. Earlier, in April 2017, it had cancelled by-election in RK Nagar assembly constituency of the state after Income Tax Department raided the then Health Minister Vijayabaskar and seized evidence of bribing voters.

It’s a common knowledge that generally decisions in the Election Commission are taken by consensus. But when consensus eludes, decisions are taken by a majority. Dissent, if any, has to be respected and not frowned upon. And it begins with recording the dissenting view. It will only enhance the Election Commission’s credibility in the eyes of the electorate.

Transparency must 

• The CEC may be right in saying that the poll panel’s decisions on MCC need not be treated as quasi-judicial verdicts and hence there was no need to pass speaking orders. But certain degree of transparency in its functioning is called for, particularly when one of its own members decides not to go with the majority views.