Karnataka poll shows EC’s independence has been diluted

Elections in India are held regularly and conducted successfully. A large part of this success is due to the Election Commission (EC), which is a widely trusted constitutional body that functions independently of executive control and interference. The EC’s reputation for independence and fairness is not just its individual attribute but also forms an important part of the political system’s legitimacy and the people’s trust in democratic institutions.

The EC, on the whole, has ensured a level playing field. However, legal safeguards to guarantee this have been compromised lately. Critics point out that its actions and inactions are often supportive of the ruling party. The complaints centre on its failure to act against violations of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC). Questions have also been asked about the scheduling of polls to suit the convenience of the ruling party.

The change occurred after the BJP became the first party in three decades (after the Congress in 1984) to win a parliamentary majority on its own in 2014, signalling the return of a dominant executive. This has constrained most institutions, including the EC. It was noticeable during the 2019 General Election when the EC’s actions were widely questioned.

When the MCC was imposed in March 2019, the EC made it clear that the candidates should avoid mentioning the armed forces in their campaigns to derive political mileage from them. But this principle was not adhered to by top leaders of the ruling dispensation as first-time voters were urged to keep in mind the ‘sacrifice’ of the forces while casting their votes. This was not just a direct invocation of the Balakot airstrikes but also a clear violation of the EC’s appeal to the parties. Yet, it failed to take action against the BJP, but was quick to take action for similar violations by Opposition parties.

The bigger majority in the 2019 election further strengthened the executive and this further constrained the EC’s ability to act as an independent referee. During several Assembly elections held since 2019, political leaders have repeatedly violated the MCC, which prohibits appeals by candidates, their agents or any other persons on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language, but none of them have been penalised for egregious violations. As a consequence, communal campaigns and hate speech have been normalised.

In the just-concluded Karnataka Assembly elections, the EC failed to create a level playing field. It has been accused of turning a blind eye to the numerous infractions of senior BJP leaders and their repeated invocation of religion in the campaign.

The top leadership, from the Prime Minister downwards, sought to equate the Bajrang Dal, a right-wing organisation with ties to the BJP, with Bajrang Bali, a Hindu god. Voters were exhorted to say ‘Jai Bajrang Bali’ while casting their vote.

The Bahutva Karnataka, a citizens’ forum for communal harmony and democratic values, complained against the soliciting of votes in the name of a Hindu deity by the PM and other BJP leaders. Section 123 (3) of the Representation of the People Act forbids appeals to vote on grounds of religion and community. The Congress, too, asked the EC to restrain the PM from taking the name of the Hindu god. But the EC took no action, even as it issued a notice to the Congress for a comment about Karnataka’s ‘sovereignty’ that Sonia Gandhi had not even made. It also served a show-cause notice on Karnataka PCC president DK Shivakumar for the Congress’ political advertisement alleging a ‘40% commission sarkara.’

However, the EC failed to act on complaints against the appeal to religious sentiments by top leaders of the ruling party. Nor was any action taken when leaders delivered hate speech or made defamatory remarks against the Congress, accusing it of supporting terrorism and the banned People’s Front of India (PFI). The Union Home Minister even suggested that the state would be rocked by communal riots if the Congress came to power.

These absurd charges were clearly designed to polarise the electorate and inflame passions with the aim of consolidating the Hindu vote. But the commission neither issued show-cause notices nor took any action against these violations.

The EC’s handling of complaints, through action or inaction, was arbitrary in Karnataka. Thus, the EC is progressively not being seen as an unbiased umpire. This is partly because the government controls the EC personnel’s appointments and finances. This has been true in the past as well, but under the current regime, it seems the controls are more extensive.

The Supreme Court flagged the issue of appointments in the historic judgment of March 2, 2023, which ordered an end to the practice of the government appointing election commissioners on its own. The order was aimed at preventing the EC from becoming, in the words of the SC, “a servile commission” and vitiating the purity and integrity of the poll process.

The phrase “servile commission” was mentioned in the Constituent Assembly by the Chairman of its Drafting Committee, BR Ambedkar. During the discussions on the draft Constitution, Ambedkar admitted that there was nothing “to provide against nomination of an unfit person to the post of the Chief Election Commissioner or the other Election Commissioner.” The apprehension that the election commissioners are likely to be “under the thumb of the executive” resonates in the reiteration of the expression “servile commission” by the apex court.

The EC’s neutrality is essential for its success. Elections in first-past post electoral systems, such as India’s, are high-stakes contests. The highly competitive and closely fought elections require the EC to be impartial. If the EC’s neutrality is questioned or its conduct displays a definite political leaning, it will lose its credibility. Without executive restraint or stronger institutional checks, the EC’s integrity and functional independence remain under threat in our democracy and will weaken it in the long run.