Setting the agenda for electoral reforms

Published : Jan 08, 2000 00:00 IST

Interview with Dr. M.S. Gill, Chief Election Commissioner.

Under Chief Election Commissioner Dr. M.S. Gill, the three-member Election Commission has shown a degree of coherence, which marks a welcome departure from the time of his predecessor, T.N. Seshan, which was characterised by acrimony, bitterness a nd grand-standing. Recent suggestions that the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government at the Centre was in favour of increasing the Commission's strength to five members have, therefore, occasioned concern in several quarters. In the absence of compelling reasons for the induction of additional Commissioners, there were doubts about the Government's motives. It was feared that this was a ruse to "pack the benches" by appointing individuals who would be amenable to governmental persuasion, and thus keep t he constitutional body in check by whittling its powers.

Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's reported remark that the Government was contemplating such a move was subsequently denied by his office. More recent ministerial pronouncements appear to reflect a greater appreciation of the advisability of maintain ing the status quo in respect of the Commission's strength. The focus now is merely on filling the vacancy occasioned by the retirement on September 30 of Election Commissioner G.V.G. Krishnamurthy. Various names, including that of Law Commission member N.M. Ghatate, are reported to be under consideration, but the Government appears not to have finalised its nominee for the post. The perceived necessity of maintaining the regional balance within the Commission might eventually decide matters in f avour of a nominee from one of the four southern States.

In an extensive interview to V. Venkatesan, Dr. Gill outlines the Commission's priorities and its reform agenda and details the extent of its preparation for the Assembly elections that are due in four States by March. The interview is prefaced by Dr. Gill's well-considered and practical proposal to provide greater representation to women in legislative bodies at all levels. The proposal appears to hold the promise that it will find acceptability among the political parties and facilitate a conse nsus. Excerpts:

The women's reservation Bill has led to deep divisions across the political spectrum. What would you propose to end the stalemate caused by this?

First of all, whatever I say here is purely as an individual and a concerned citizen.

If you have reservation for women at the level of local government, how can you say that you do not need it at the State level and at the national level? That is one contradiction. Second, I believe that providing substantial representation for women, in Parliament and in the State Assemblies, will have a positive effect and make for better, more civilised and progressive working.

But how should it be done? Take the current constitutional scheme of reservation for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. It was clearly provided that the reserved seats will be rotated, but from Nehru's days onwards, nobody has been able to ro tate them, owing to vested interests. All parties suffered as a result, but they chose to ignore it. Representatives of many parties have come to me and said: why don't you rotate the seats? I can't do that unless Parliament authorises me to. And even if I am authorised to do that, there is perhaps a negative side to such rotation. For instance, Ropar constituency in Punjab has for 50 years been reserved for the Scheduled Castes. Let us say that a person from the reserved category has become a political leader. Now if you move that reserved seat to Jalandhar, that person's career will suffer a setback, because he or she can't go anywhere and contest.

What has been the experience of other countries? As Chief Election Commissioner, I visit every year the Stockholm-based Institute for Democracy, a United Nations-type of body of which India is a founder-member. Last year, when I was there, there was a de bate on the issue of reservation for women. In the Scandinavian countries, about 40 per cent of the members of Parliament are women. In South Africa, which is a nascent democracy, in the recent elections, out of 400 elected representatives, 125 are women , which is more than 27 per cent. Comparatively, in India, there are only 40-odd women MPs out of 543. This has to be corrected.

In India, under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, the political system works by the recognition of the Commission. The BJP has an exclusive symbol, the Congress(I) has one... every party has a distinctive symbol, and if that is take n away, you have seen the consequences. Without the symbol, the party is dead.

There are two simple ways to ensure greater participation of women in the democratic process. But it is best to do it in a way which will provide for a natural development of effective women political workers in all parties. How can this be done?

One way would be to put down in the Symbols Order, with the agreement of the parties, that all parties that wish to secure or retain the recognition of the Election Commission must provide a minimum proportion of representation to women at every election to the State Assembly or Parliament. Parliament can fix the minimum proportion as 40 per cent, 30 per cent or 20 per cent.

Let us say it is set at 30 per cent. All parties shall have to put up 30 women candidates out of every 100, but they will have the flexibility to put them up wherever they have the best political worker, a genuine worker, and fight it out. Under this pro cedure, the women candidates will not face the criticism that they are being offered seats on a platter: they have to be active workers to contest in an open constituency.

This procedure will also settle the demand that is being raised - that if you have reservation, you should have internal reservation for the backward classes. This is because one party can give away the entire quota to women from the backward classes, an other party may give it to women of this or that category... Ultimately the parties will give the ticket keeping in view how the voter will react. And very quickly you will find a lot of active women members, at the State level and at the national level.

If you don't want to do it that way, you could do it by introducing a section or a sub-section in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to the effect that every recognised party shall be able to retain the recognition of the Commission (only) if it gives a specified per cent of the party ticket to women in every Lok Sabha or Assembly election. In Scandinavian countries, women's representation is enforced through the parties. This way the objective of securing for women a share in the political pro cess is met. The parties will have the flexibility of putting up women candidates, where they have genuine political workers. The current angry debate will die out then. It is a more organic way of quickly expanding women's representation.

What are the major lessons you would draw from the conduct of 13th Lok Sabha elections?

In this election, for the first time, only a handful of the 52 recognised parties tried to target the Election Commission. I accept we are not perfect. We try to do better in each election. That is why we have repeated meetings with all the recognised pa rties. This time we had a meeting in May and another in June. The idea is to facilitate a free exchange of views.

But during the election, if sometimes you target the Commission as a tactical measure, you may not be serving Indian democracy. At the same time, we recognise that it is a free country, it is a free democracy, it is a free press. Thank God for that. I su pport all that.

Second, Article 329(b) of the Constitution (which states that "no election... shall be called in question except by an election petition...") is a historic provision put in by Ambedkar and Nehru very wisely. Once an election is on, courts will not interf ere. The reason is simple: if you allow that, unhappy candidates, potential candidates and parties will obtain stay orders from any of the 10,000 lower courts, and the process will die.

This has been upheld throughout the last 52 years and 13 parliamentary elections. In fact, occasionally when somebody tried to say something, the Supreme Court strongly and massively pushed it back. I have read somewhere that Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer ca lled Article 329(b) "a Great Wall of China even against us in the Supreme Court". In other words: do not interfere; after the elections, hear every case; you can even censure the Commission if we have been foolish.

In the 1999 election, for the first time cases were filed against us in a number of High Courts - in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and perhaps others - and willy-nilly we had to spend a great deal of time and effort filing affidavits and d oing all sorts of things. This country does not realise that in the 1999 elections the Commission's energy in substantial part was diverted, with its limited staff and limited resources, from trying to give democracy to a billion people, 614 million vote rs. Our energy was diverted, and much midnight oil had to be burnt to try and keep up with the courts. Because if a court calls us, we cannot refuse to go. This is something which must worry the country and the political parties. If we are called, we wil l obey. But the country must understand the implication of it.

If this route were to be opened, remember, there are 52 parties, at least 5,000 candidates, 25 High Courts, maybe 1,000 judges. If I have to go around the country, then the system might totally crack. So I only leave it as a caution and a warning. Becaus e I have a long experience now. What I think has been wisely put in the Constitution, what has been massively and wisely clarified in the Supreme Court, that I hope is given full heed to.

Has the Commission paid enough attention to the issue of electoral rolls? Why has it not been possible to enrol all the eligible voters? Even Election Commissioner G.V.G. Krishnamurthy did not find his name in the rolls in the recent elections.

Over the last two years we have computerised the complete electoral rolls of India, which have the names of 614 million voters by the latest count. We have put it on master computers in the country. We have also added a column to ensure better identifica tion to eliminate bogus voters: the voter's father's name is also given. If you have received the photo identity card, that number is printed in the last column. Sixty-five per cent of the electorate has got it; almost everybody in Haryana, in Maharashtr a, in Gujarat has got it.

Details of voters' list in each parliamentary constituency have been brought in book form and on CD-ROM disks. Not every State had completed this exercise for the last elections. Sikkim has done it, Kerala has done it, Punjab is doing it. Some are in the process of doing it. But this is a monumental work. Even in the United States the voters' list is not available on CD-ROMs. I have them!

I believe that easy availability of information to every Indian citizen is the only way to check abuse. Any party can buy those books or CD-ROMs and study the data. Each party can easily prevent bogus voting by the other parties. Ultimately the system ha s to be corrected. If you keep it hidden away, these surprises will crop up at voting time.

Again, in order to try and get the political parties, voters and the candidates to focus on issues (because they don't bother, although they complain later), for the first time in 1998 the Commission conducted a Pulse Polio-kind of campaign for electoral roll revision on two specified dates across the entire country - from Kerala to Kashmir. We took out advertisements and said that on this day, officers will be present at designated places, go and get your name corrected. I wrote to the presidents of ea ch of the 52 recognised parties. I am sorry to say that not one of them even acknowledged (my letter).

What is the ideal composition of the Election Commission?

That issue is dead, and it has been settled that it will be a three-member Commission. Law Minister Ram Jethmalani has stated emphatically in Parliament. On the day the Union Cabinet was expanded, the Prime Minister was quoted as saying that the Commissi on would be expanded, but the Prime Minister's Office issued a contradiction. Mr. Advani too spoke emphatically on this. So I think the issue, at least as I understand it, is dead. It is going to be a three-member Commission, and I am looking forward to the appointment of the third member.

It was wrong to have a one-man Commission. You cannot leave it to one man, particularly when the Commission's work has evolved and expanded. I have repeatedly stated that I am one-third of the Commission because I want the country to understand the point I am making: that we are simply a court bench of three, and like the courts, if a Chief Justice is voted out by the other two members, there is no problem. By formulation, I have the confidence that I can persuade my two colleagues on a good thought whi ch I might have. But if I cannot, I will abide by their decision.

It is a matter of history, and I am proud of it, that (former Chief Election Commissioner T.N.) Seshan stayed on for 16 months as Chairman after the judgment. Every decision was unanimous, because in my view, a good Cabinet, a good committee, a good boar d of directors does not decide by voting. Even though you could say that the two members had a majority over Seshan we would have been very petty if we had gone on that route. There were occasions, when Seshan held his view, and we gave it up. I said, "Y ou are the Chairman, and I will go with you."

And since I took over as the CEC, every decision of the Commission has been taken unanimously. As long as I am here, it will always be like this. In fact, I have carried it further. The three members are joined by two Deputy Election Commissioners, who a re entitled to an equal say in the argument. Sometimes I joke with them that you guys are rolling us over. Even Deputy Secretaries of the Commission often join in. They have an equal role. I firmly believe that wisdom does not go with rank. So if anybody has a good idea, we will take it.

In other words, a three-member Commission is necessary for India, and it must have a method of working, because unfortunately in India personalities tend to dominate. We often find in political parties and in Cabinets eternal quarrels based on personalit ies. We are not like that.

As far as going beyond three (members), in the nature of the Commission's work, three is essential, five will be a disaster. The reason is very simple: our work is field work. At midnight, I consult two people, and I have to give a decision. Three is fin e. I am happy and I am grateful that the Government is emphatically holding to that. We have suggested to all parties that as part of the electoral reform proposal, the parties should put a seal on a maximum of three members in the Commission. Previous g overnments and parties had stayed with three members. This Government, which comprises 24 parties, has stayed with three. I don't think you need anything more now.

How well is the Commission prepared for the Assembly elections in Bihar, Manipur, Orissa, and Haryana, due early in 2000?

The Bihar Assembly's term ends on April 9. In Orissa and Manipur, the terms end on March 23. The Haryana Assembly has been dissolved. We will hold elections to ensure that each of the States has a new Assembly in good time. Before March 31, they have to pass a vote on account.

We are into intensive preparations. Meetings with the Home Ministry to ascertain the security needs are going on. I am naturally concerned. Groups are attacking railway stations in Bihar, in Madhya Pradesh a Minister has been killed. All these regions - Bihar, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, and Andhra Pradesh - have this trouble. Manipur has its own set of problems. So we are into intensive preparations. We will finish it in good time.

What are the immediate steps that should be taken by Parliament and the Government to reform the electoral process?

I have written to the Prime Minister reminding him of some of the major issues, on which we have already sent proposals. Proxy voting for the armed forces is our idea. I hope they pass the Bill to give effect to that. Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act has a loophole which enables parties and friends to spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of the candidates. I have drawn his attention to that. To check the criminalisation of politics, we want the provisions of Section 8A of the Rep resentation of the People Act to be strengthened and simplified. We have given proposals for that.

Further, the procedure for disqualifying persons found guilty of corrupt practices is very cumbersome. We want this straightened out. The anti-defection law seems to have failed in implementation. The former Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Mr. P.A. Sangma, pro posed that the Election Commission be empowered to do this, rather than the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the State Assemblies. We have said that if you want to put this burden on the Commission, we will not hesitate. I think that if the anti-defection law is promptly and effectively and instantly applied, without hesitation, it is good enough.

Now that data for the Census of 2001 is to be compiled, a major issue which we want the parties and Parliament to address is delimitation. Delimitation has two aspects. One is that after the Census count, you should consider whether there is a need to in crease or decrease the number of parliamentary seats in the States. That provision was blocked 30 years ago because it was felt that States that had implemented family planning programmes successfully should not be punished, and that those that go on add ing to the population should not be rewarded. Perhaps we will do the same again, but they will have to do it very soon.

But the second aspect of delimitation cannot wait. In fact, the Constitution requires it to be addressed. That is, if Delhi continues to have seven seats, you cannot have Outer Delhi with 30 lakh voters, and Chandni Chowk with less than four lakh voters. That I believe is even unconstitutional, because that means the value of a voter in a rural area in Outer Delhi is only one-seventh of that of a Chandni Chowk voter.

We believe that this is not a job for which you need to appoint a Commission; in fact, a Commission already exists - and that is the Election Commission of India. My first job is to have balanced constituencies.

Sign in to Unlock member-only benefits!
  • Bookmark stories to read later.
  • Comment on stories to start conversations.
  • Subscribe to our newsletters.
  • Get notified about discounts and offers to our products.
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide to our community guidelines for posting your comment