REWIND

New Delhi, 2 November 2023

FAIR POLL AND OFFICIAL PLANES

By Inder Jit

(Released on 23 April 1991)

One aspect of free and fair elections has not received the attention it merits. Hardly any party has raised the question in regard to the use of Air Force planes by the Prime Minister for promoting his party’s poll prospects. One’s thoughts in this context go back to 1979 when, prior to the 1980 poll, one witnessed a raging controversy over the use of the official planes by the Prime Minister, Mr Charan Singh. The BJP leader, Mr L.K. Advani, then strongly protested to the Chief Election Commissioner, Mr S. L. Shakdher, against the “gross misuse of Government machinery for electoral ends at the level of the Prime Minister.” Immediate provocation for the controversy was provided by Mr Charan Singh’s visit to Andhra Pradesh by an Air Force plane. The controversy again erupted prior to the 1984 poll when Mr N.T. Rama Rao then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, requested the use of a Government helicopter for electioneering. But the then Chief Election Commissioner, Mr R.K. Trivedi, refused permission on the ground that he was not the only Chief Minister to be denied the privilege. The Prime Minister alone, he asserted, was permitted to use official aircraft for electioneering.

The CEC has again ruled that the Prime Minister alone can use official aircraft. Is his stand fair? But before the question is answered, we would do well to take a look at the convention and its background. Nehru, according to Durga Das in his well-known memoirs “India--- from Curzon to Nehru and After”, was initially against using IAF planes. He did not think it proper for him to travel for his election campaign in the planes he used for official purposes as the Prime Minister. At the same time, however, “neither he nor the Congress Party could afford to charter a plane for the purpose.” The then Auditor-General, thereupon came to the ruling party’s rescue and salved Nehru’s conscience by devising a convenient formula. “The PM’s life”, he said, “must be secured, against all risks and this could be assured best if he travelled by air. Air transport would avoid the need for the large security staff required if he travelled by rail. Since it was the nation's responsibility to see to his security, the nation must pay for it.” (Train journey, it was argued, would entail posting security men all along the route!)

An equally obliging bureaucracy gave formal shape to the idea and a committee of senior officers recommended as early as in 1951 the use of the IAF planes by the Prime Minister “for official as well as other types of journeys.” The committee argued and the Government agreed that even though the Prime Minister undertakes tours for electioneering as a party leader, the business of Government does not come to a standstill. It was, therefore, the responsibility of Government also to provide adequate facilities which would enable the Prime Minister to attend to Governmental functions even while on tour. The new rule then framed enabled the Prime Minister to use IAF planes by paying the Government only the normal fare charged by the civil airlines for transporting a passenger. Thus, by contributing a bare fraction of the total expenses incurred on his countrywide electioneering, Nehru was able to acquire a mobility which multiplied a hundredfold his effectiveness as a campaigner and vote catcher.

Authoritative sources also draw attention to a few other facts. The Prime Minister now uses the official aircraft under certain rule, framed in 1968 during Mrs Gandhi’s Government. These provide, first, that “in the case of the Prime Minister it is necessary that even on occasions that he or she has to undertake journeys mainly for reasons other than official duties, he or she would be able to travel by aircraft for the due performance of his or her duties as head of Government as well as for reasons of security. Second, in the case of such non-official tours payment according to certain scales has to be made by the Prime Minister or other non-officials who travel with him. (The Prime Minister is required to pay a very nominal cost; one passenger fare by a scheduled commercial airline between two points.) Third, the Prime Minister has full discretion to take any other passenger as considered necessary by him. Fourth, for officials who have to travel with the Prime Minister, “the concerned Ministry or Department makes the payment.”

Various Opposition leaders have strongly criticised the convention over the years. Independent observers anxious to see democracy strengthened are also far from satisfied. The considerations which make it necessary to permit the Prime Minister to use the official aircraft for electioneering all over the country apply equally to the Chief Minister within the boundaries of his own State. Like the Prime Minister, the Chief Minister does not cease being a Chief Minister when he undertakes journeys for reasons other than official. He, too, needs to be able to travel by official aircraft for the due performance of his or her duties as head of Government as well for reasons of security. Understandably, the issue did not arise during Nehru’s time. He was his party’s principal campaigner and there were no Chief Ministers belonging to the Opposition who wanted official aircraft. However, much water has flowed down the Jamuna since, we have now not only Chief Ministers belonging to the “Opposition” but also convenient and fuel saving helicopters.

Again, is it fair to allow the Prime Minister alone to use official aircraft virtually for a song? In the last Lok Sabha poll, the use of official aircraft had enabled the, then, Prime Minister, Mr Rajiv Gandhi to address election meetings in about 300 constituencies. In sharp contrast, the Opposition leaders were nowhere near Mr Gandhi’s record, reminiscent of the hurricane poll tours undertaken by Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi. A question that arises is: Should not official planes also be available to the top Opposition leaders? Without exception, the Opposition leaders answer in the affirmative. One top leader argued: “Once the poll is announced, the Prime Minister’s status and privileges must change in favour of equality with the other party leaders. If security is an overriding consideration, it must be extended to the leaders of the other recognised parties. In the US, all the Presidential candidates are provided equal facilities.”

Clearly, there is need to study the whole matter afresh in the light of conventions in other democracies. In the UK, the Prime Minister does not use official transport for election campaigning. In a classic case, Attlee campaigned in his own car driven by his wife and accompanied by merely one detective! (Interestingly, Mr Gandhi drove the car in Amethi.) In Canada, use of official aircraft by the Prime Minister for party purposes is acknowledged on all sides as an unfair advantage and, therefore, avoided. In the USA, the President can utilise the Air Force plane as assigned to him for his poll campaign. However, he has to reimburse the Air Force for its use on actual cost basis. In India in 1967, Mrs Gandhi used IAF planes for her 46-day poll campaign round the country and paid for it no more than Rs 8,650. During the mid-term poll in UP early in 1969, she was charged Rs. 6 and a few odd paise for a 20 minute helicopter ride from Deoria to Kasia, an air distance of 20 miles. The road distance of about 30 miles would have cost between Rs 20 and 25 by a taxi, if available.

The use of IAF or official planes does not necessarily spell victory, as shown by the defeat of Indira Gandhi in 1977 and of Charan Singh in 1980. (Tragically, Mr Charan Singh failed to implement as Prime Minister his own earlier plea that identical facilities should be made available to the Opposition parties in all fairness.) Nevertheless, the Election Commission should have had the good sense to ensure equal opportunity to all the parties in the poll battle from the word go. Even now, it should allow the use of Government aircraft and helicopters to the national parties when two former Prime Ministers are in the poll fray. The IAF can surely spare for a few weeks at least five or six of its transport aircraft and an equal number of helicopters. The poll should not only be fair. It must also be seen to be fair. The Chief Election Commissioner, Mr Seshan, who seems keen to ensure a free and fair poll, can still set up a new and healthy convention. He has the power to do so. --- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)