ECI under a cloud for going soft on PM Modi’s communal utterances

The electoral body’s impartiality is also under question as it is quick to censure opposition leaders but goes easy on the BJP.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi with a bow and arrow during a public meeting in Banswara on April 21. | Photo Credit: ANI

In recent times, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has been making news for all the wrong reasons. The procedure for appointing the three-member team, consisting of the Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners, has been rooted in controversy due to the overarching discretion given to the government in these appointments. Furthermore, the ECI’s allegedly selective and ad hoc manner of dealing with infractions of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and The Representation of the People Act has been equally controversial. And, the delayed and upward revision of the voter turnout numbers for the first and second phases of the Lok Sabha election has raised valid concerns.

First, a reading of some of the various orders issued by the ECI ever since the election kicked off showed that it had sent more notices to opposition parties for violations and censured them more severely, as compared to how it dealt with the BJP and its allies. Equally startling was the seeming equivalence drawn by the ECI between outright violations of provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (formerly Indian Penal Code or IPC) and the MCC by star campaigners of the BJP and the utterances of leaders of the INDIA bloc parties.

Giving BJP a long rope

Second, while some show cause notices went by name to the political leader or party chief concerned, the ECI demurred from doing the same when three political parties sent a memorandum to it stating that Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the star campaigner of the National Democratic Alliance, had through his utterances at election rallies violated the MCC, the Representation of the People Act, as well as provisions of the IPC.

Third, rather than take suo moto notice of Modi’s speeches at Banswara, Rajasthan, which were widely televised and also available on his official social media handle, the ECI waited for a full four days to issue a notice not to the Prime Minister by name but to the BJP president, J.P. Nadda.

The wishy-washy notice, other than being similarly worded like the one sent to the Congress, merely took cognisance of the complaints by the Congress, the CPI and the CPI (ML) and made some general remarks on how national political parties were expected to set high standards of MCC compliance.

Although the Congress and the CPI (M-L) sent their individual complaints on April 21, the day the Banswara speech was made, and the CPI on April 23, the ECI sent a notice to the BJP president only on April 25 and gave time until April 29 to file a reply. At the time of writing this report, the BJP had not sent its reply. In the notices to both the BJP and the Congress, the ECI took the view that political parties would have to take primary and increasing responsibility for the conduct of their candidates in general and star campaigners in particular.

The ECI also took the view that while the individual star campaigner would continue to be responsible for the speeches made, it would address the party president or the head of the political party, on a case-to-case basis. Yet, in Modi’s case, the ECI has not held him individually responsible for his speeches.

Acting tough on Congress

Interestingly, on April 16, the ECI sent a show cause notice by name to Congress MP Randeep Surjewala for violating the MCC in the course of a speech on April 9 in Kaithal district in Haryana, where he allegedly made a disparaging remark while referring to the BJP candidate Hema Malini. A similar show cause notice was sent to Congress spokesperson Supriya Shrinate for a social media post on the film actor Kangana Ranaut.

In Surjewala’s case, the ECI took a strong view. It “condemned” his statement and reprimanded him for his conduct. It also barred him from holding any public meetings, public rallies, or processions, or giving interviews and utterances to the media for 48 hours. But no such embargo was put on the BJP’s star campaigner, neither did he get a reprimand.

On April 5 too, on the basis of a complaint from the BJP, the ECI sent a show cause by name to Atishi, a Minister in the Delhi government. She had held a press conference where she stated that she had been approached by someone very senior in the BJP to join the party.

Banswara speech in focus

The April 21 Banswara speech by PM Modi drew a lot of criticism, not only from political parties but civil society as well. On April 25, in what was clearly a balancing act, the ECI sent two show cause notices, one each to the BJP and Congress presidents.

The notice to Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge was on the basis of complaints by the BJP against the speeches of both Rahul Gandhi and Kharge on separate occasions. The complaint against Rahul Gandhi was that he had made “false and sinister allegations” against Narendra Modi in a speech in Coimbatore.

Rahul Gandhi, according to the complaint, was behaving like an “incorrigible serial offender”, had tried to create a linguistic divide between the Tamil people and others, and levelled baseless allegations against Modi. The complaint itself was full of invective for Rahul Gandhi, describing him as a “pathological liar and habitual offender”.

Kharge was also accused of “misleading voters” by suggesting that the BJP would change the Constitution if it came to power. Further, it was suggested that the Congress party and Rahul Gandhi were trying to build a false and deceitful narrative by undermining the achievements of the government, ruffling the sensitivities and sensibilities of the southern States, and spreading lies that leaders like Rahul Gandhi and Kharge had not been invited to the consecration ceremony at the Ayodhya Ram temple.

Invoking Hinduism and appealing to Hindu sentiments

In its own complaint to the ECI, the Congress said that the BJP and its leaders had consistently invoked religion, religious symbols, and sentiments in their campaign, but the statements at Banswara was clearly aimed at creating enmity between groups, “far worse than any other made by a sitting Prime Minister in the history of India”.

In that controversial speech, Modi suggested that the Congress would give away the country’s wealth to Muslims, who he described as “ghuspaithiye” or infiltrators. The gravity of the offence, the Congress said, was even more serious and egregious as it was made by the Prime Minister.

The party also listed five instances where Modi had suggested that the Congress was against Hindu culture. “Till date, the Commission has not even issued a show cause notice to the said individual, much less initiate action against them. The Commission must ask itself if the same leeway would be granted to any other candidate if they so arrogantly and repeatedly defied the laws of the country,” the Congress said in its complaint.

The CPI too, in its complaint, said that the Prime Minister had made inflammatory statements by referring to Muslims as ghuspaithiye and “jinke jyada bacche hain” and that Congress would take away the mangalsutras worn by Hindu women.

The CPI(M-L) said that the Prime Minister, while referring to the Congress manifesto, had “engaged in blatant lies, crudity and communal dog-whistling” against the Muslim community which was violative of the Representation of the People Act as well as the MCC. The party said that the Prime Minister had also made communal speeches in Ajmer, Rajasthan, on April 6, Nawada, Bihar, on April 7, and Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh, on April 9 with repeated references to the Ram temple at Ayodhya and the Hindu community.

The CPI (M) filed a complaint with the Delhi Police Commissioner on the remarks by Modi in his Banswara speech. Sitaram Yechury, the party general secretary, wrote to the ECI to take action against the BJP and Modi.

Former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa in 2019. | Photo Credit: PTI

“MCC needs a full revamp”

Ashok Lavasa, former Election Commissioner, spoke to Frontline on a range of issues that have dogged the office of the present ECI. Lavasa, who was next in line to be CEC, put in his papers in 2020. He had dissented with the decision of his team members to give a clean chit to Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah for violating the MCC in the 2019 election.

On whether the ECI could take suo moto action for MCC violations and other violations rather than wait for a political party to make a complaint, he said that it was a general practice for the ECI to take action or send a notice on the basis of a complaint, although nothing prevented it from taking suo moto action. “As a matter of practice and pragmatism, the ECI does not take suo moto action lest it be accused of bias,” he said.

On the 11-day delay by the ECI in declaring the final voter turnout numbers after the first phase of polling, he said that the system was equipped to release the data within 48 hours, if not on the same day. He added: “One needs to understand the process. There’s a Form 17 c that is filled at the end of the poll. The presiding officer is supposed to fill it in duplicate and give an attested copy as per established guidelines for the scrutiny process. The scrutiny enables the Returning Officer to convey a more exact picture of voting percentages.”

He said: “What typically happens is that the ECI makes a press release after the ‘close of poll’ of the approximate polling on the basis of reports from various Returning Officers. The phase one polling percentage was released 11 days later and the phase two in 3-4 days, just as was done for phase three. I feel there should be complete transparency in the disclosure of information to build trust. The elementary data, votes cast and number of electors, should be released.”

On the issue of MCC, hate speeches, and the ECI’s view to make political parties instead of individuals liable, Lavasa said: “The MCC does not grade any offence. All the do’s and don’ts are based on provisions of law. The law prescribes the limit to which people can go. The MCC is a voluntary code. The code makes an individual liable for violations. So far there is no provision to make parties liable, but I feel that parties should also be made liable. The MCC needs a full revamp with possibly punishable consequences prescribed for each violation within a time-bound framework for giving decisions on such violations.”

He also said: “I had suggested in 2019 that every complaint made to the ECI should be put on its website along with an action taken report. The ECI has to deal with voters. Its compact is with the voters. Candidates and political parties are players. Among all institutions created by the Constitution, it is only the ECI which has no relationship with the government in terms of its activities and obligations. The actions of every other institution are related to the government but the ECI’s domain is with the electors.”

On May 6, the ECI censured Chandrababu Naidu, the Telugu Desam Party chief and his party’s star campaigner, for violating the MCC, and directed him to be careful about his public utterances. There were at least eight instances cited in the ECI order where Naidu had apparently violated the MCC provisions and ECI advisories.

The ECI similarly censured the YSCRP chief and Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Jagan Mohan Reddy for similar violations in utterances made against Naidu and Pawan Kalyan, chief of the Jana Sena party. But the language of the censure differed, in that Reddy was pulled up mildly. While Naidu was literally held responsible for undermining the electoral process, Reddy’s actions, the ECI noted, did not “behove of a leader holding public office of chief minister”.

Star campaigners of every other party have been pulled up, save for the BJP.

Congress leader Jairam Ramesh displays the party’s guarantee card at a press conference in New Delhi on May 1. | Photo Credit: SHIV KUMAR PUSHPAKAR

Selective application of MCC

There have been instances of selective application of the MCC. On April 16, the BJP complained to the ECI that the Congress was indulging in corrupt practices. The Congress had launched its “Ghar Ghar Guarantee” programme on April 3. It declared it would reach 8 crore households and make them aware of the party’s guarantees. On May 2, the ECI directed all political parties to cease enrolling/registering voters for post-election beneficiary-oriented schemes under the guise of surveys. It said that this was a corrupt practice of bribery under relevant sections of the the Representation of the People Act.

On May 6, the ECI issued another order which directed parties to take down fake content within three hours of it coming to their notice. Political parties were issued a warning regarding the misuse of AI-based tools to create deep fakes that distorted information or propagate misinformation.

The existing legal framework, the ECI stated, would be used to deal with misinformation and synthetic content brought to the notice of political parties.

On May 2 the BJP had filed a complaint with the ECI on doctored content involving Union Home Minister Amit Shah. An FIR was registered by the Delhi Police based on a complaint by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre which comes under the Home Ministry.Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy and Jharkhand Congress chief Rajesh Thakur were among those who were summoned.

The national coordinator of the Congress’ social media team was arrested. In contrast, in the case of an animated video put by the BJP’s Karnataka unit on the X social media platform, caricaturing Rahul Gandhi and Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and Muslims as recipients of Congress largesse, the ECI’s ire drew only to the extent that it directed X to take down the content.

Also, PM Modi has been constantly singling out Muslims as a category in his speeches with no censuring, mild or otherwise, by the ECI, of either the party or its star campaigner.

On May 1, in an election rally in Hyderabad, referring to himself in first person, he declared that as long as he was alive, he would not let reservations for Dalits, Adivasis and OBCs be given to Muslims on the basis of religion. He claimed that the Congress gave BC reservations to Muslims in undivided Andhra Pradesh after the 2004 and 2009 elections.

On May 7, at a public meeting in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, he reiterated his claim about minority appeasement, referring to Muslims as the INDIA bloc’s vote bank. He launched a frontal attack once again referring to RJD leader Lalu Prasad’s remarks to the media about extending reservations to Muslims. Modi reiterated lines from his Banswara speech that the Congress would take the reservations from SCs, STs, and OBCs and give them to Muslims.