Elections in times of Covid
The Covid-19 pandemic has posed practical challenges to India’s electoral landscape. At stake are several byelections, RS elections to fill seats falling vacant due to periodic retirement, and, above all, the Bihar Assembly elections. While the Election Commission of India (ECI) has postponed the Assembly byelections in Assam, Kerala, UP, Nagaland, MP and Jharkhand, what is uppermost in people’s minds is the fate of Bihar polls, due to take place by November 27. Though the ECI has negated such a possibility, it will be interesting to analyse if our legislative framework allows delaying elections.
With the six-month time limit for holding byelections elapsing in June/July in the six states, the ECI availed the proviso of Section 151A of the Representation of People Act (1951), which allowed it to postpone elections. It had also put on hold several Legislative Council elections of Graduates’ and Teachers’ Constituency—under Article 171(3)(b)&(c) of the Constitution—for it would involve the movement of electors, electoral staff, campaigning, etc.
This is not the first time the ECI has postponed elections due to the virus. In the beginning of the lockdown, the RS elections of seven states and the Maharashtra Legislative Council polls were also delayed. While the latter took place following an uproar and led to Uddhav Thackeray retaining his chief-ministerial post, the former were held a few days ago, along with other states’ Legislative Council elections by MLAs.
While the byelections for a couple of Assembly seats and MLC elections can be postponed beyond six months, as they don’t risk dissolution of the concerned legislature, the same cannot be said for the entire state Assembly and Lok Sabha elections. In natural course of time, Section 14/15 of the RPA (1951) mandates the commission to hold elections within six months prior to the expiration of the five-year term of the Lok Sabha/legislative Assembly, whereas it has a period of six months after the early dissolution of the Lok Sabha/legislative Assembly. Beyond this, the ECI would have to rely on the government to proclaim ‘emergency’ to extend the term of the House/Assembly by a year, according to a proviso of Article 83 and Article 171, respectively, or imposing President’s rule. While the condition to avail the former provision is based on ‘security threat’, the latter’s implementation was restricted with a landmark judgment. The SC in SR Bommai vs Union of India (1994) held that imposition of President’s rule should be the last resort, adding that only when there is a complete breakdown of constitutional machinery should it be considered.
The possibility of the pandemic lasting over a year is looming large. Therefore, there is a need to explore a more democratic option of holding elections with improvised rules and stricter social distancing norms. India will not be the first country to hold elections during the pandemic. According to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, at least 33 countries have decided to go (or have gone) ahead with it. Taiwan and South Korea have set an example in holding their elections successfully.
Taiwan held local elections in January and presidential elections in March. Its electoral management body undertook preventive measures, including disinfecting polling stations, maintaining social distance, temperature check and use of sanitisers and masks. While citizens under home isolation or quarantine were barred from voting, a separate booth was organised for those with fever or respiratory symptoms. It placed a transparent sheet between the voters and the staff. Its implementation won the trust of the voters.
South Korea, too, achieved a foolproof parliamentary election. Along with measures like the usage of mask and gloves, social distancing of
1 metre between voters, it also ensured voters in isolation or with Covid-like symptoms practised their political right. Voters with temperature above 99.5F were sent to an isolated polling booth, while quarantined voters were allowed to vote through post or visit the polling centre after 6 pm. South Korea recorded its highest turnout of 66.2% in 28 years.
Citing these examples, Ashok Lavasa, Election Commissioner of India, has stated that the ECI has ‘taken note of international experiences’ and is evaluating the feasibility of such safeguards. It is pertinent to appreciate the safeguards the ECI has undertaken to ensure safe RS elections. It has prepared a fresh standard operating procedure with the help of health officials. While they made masks and gloves compulsory, a separate route, elevators and designated waiting rooms were planned for MLAs with abnormal body temperature during thermal scan. The ECI allowed MLAs who had coronavirus, as was seen in MP when a Congress MLA arrived to vote in a PPE suit!
Taking inspiration from this experience, Sunil Arora, Chief Election Commissioner of India, has revealed that the ECI has decided to allow Covid patients and 65-year-old citizens to use postal ballot voting. It would be desirable to extend this facility to those who suffer with co-morbidities.
The ECI is also considering reducing the number of voters at each polling station to reduce crowding. This will require doubling the staff, a difficult job but not impossible. With schools closed, all teachers are available.
It can also consider the option of scattered voting day, along with scattered voting times publicised by the ECI’s well-networked booth-level officers and voter education programmes.
The pandemic has indeed turned into a test for the ECI to stand up to its motto of ‘No Voter Left Behind’. It will set another milestone in its 70 years of path-breaking journey.
