REWIND

New Delhi, 9 November 2023

RIGHT MEN IN RIGHT PLACES

By Inder Jit

(Released on 20 April 1982) 

Lusty cheers greeted the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the controversial West Bengal poll. This is as it should have been. The Supreme Court’s verdict is of fundamental importance to the future of India’s democracy. It is also in accordance with the wise decision taken by Nehru and the founding fathers of the Constitution to keep the electoral process out of the jurisdiction of the courts. Nehru was clear and said in so many words: “We have thousands of courts all over the country. If they are allowed to intervene there will be no end to writs. We will then have to say good-bye elections.” But in all this recent excitement the Election Commission, which deserves even louder applause, has largely been forgotten. The BJP alone has offered kudos to the Commission for its “correct stand.” As one who has followed political developments in New Delhi over the past three decades, I have not the slightest doubt that there would be no mini-general election today if the Chief Election Commissioner, Mr S.L. Shakdher, had not upheld the Commission’s independence and taken effective steps to assert it. 

Congress (I) men today accuse the Election Commission of partisanship. The Commission they feel, has favoured the Left Front Government, headed by Mr Jyoti Basu. But they forget two things. First, Mr Jyoti Basu himself denounced the Commission last year as a “stooge” and an “agent” of the Congress (I). This happened when the Commission postponed some by-elections in West Bengal last year by a month following complaints about defective rolls and decided to hold the poll according to a common programme with other states in June. The Congress (I) then complimented the Commission. Second, Mrs Gandhi acknowledged the Election Commission’s independence in the Lok Sabha on March 1. The Opposition, she said, had hailed the Commission’s decision last June to countermand the Garhwal by-election to the Lok Sabha as “truly democratic.” Yet the same Opposition had shouted hoarse about the “danger to democracy” when the Commission postponed the repoll in November last. “Does this mean,” she asked, “that democracy is only when the Commission’s decisions go in favour of the Opposition parties.” 

The West Bengal affair reflects a trend against which I wrote as follows in my Republic Day piece: “The very basis of democracy is being increasingly undermined. Democracy means rule of the people, by the people and for the people. This is made possible through time-bound elections which are free, fair and without fear. Yet there is an increasing tendency today in the ruling party to avoid inconvenient elections... Garhwal stands out as a bad example...” No stone was left unturned by the Congress (I) to somehow postpone the elections to the West Bengal Assembly beyond June 24 when its five-year term is due to end, and bring the State under President’s rule. To begin with, the bogey of bogus rolls was sought to be raised. Mrs Gandhi herself went to the extent of stating at a public meeting in West Bengal that 30 per cent of the electoral rolls were fudged. Subsequently, as we are all aware, the Congress (I) sought to block the poll on the plea of eight lakh complaints first through the Election Commission and then the Calcutta High Court. 

Yet in all this exercise the Congress (I) conveniently slurred over three basic facts. First, the Commission sought to be indicted in the High Court had got the State’s electoral rolls revised in 1979 after a gap of 15 years! (MrShakdher took over as Chief Election Commissioner in June 18, 1977.) Second, the rolls were revised again summarily in 1980 and intensively by December 31, 1981. Third, these were summarily revised afresh early this year. Not only that. The eight-lakh complaints were submitted by the Congress (I) as mere lists, many not even signed. None of the petitioners before the Calcutta High Court complained that his name was not on the rolls. Worse. Not one affidavit was filed on behalf of eight lakh complainants before the court --- the unrivalled record. Further, the complaint filed by Mr Ajit Panja, a lawyer and former Congress (I) chief in West Bengal, was also unsigned. Interestingly, Mr Panja loudly protested that 30,000 names had been wrongly deleted from the rolls of his Assembly constituency of Bartola. However, he came forward with an amending list of only 3,000 names! 

An equally interesting story hangs by the manner in which the lists of eight-lakh complainants are said to have been drawn up. Some smart Alecs of the Congress (I) appear to have decided to draw up the lists on the basis of a broad blind-shooting formula designed to produce a large list of complainants without much effort. Under the formula, the names of three categories of persons were mainly included in the list. First, all those shown on the rolls to be 70 years of age and more. This was done on the plea that they were now dead and gone. Second, all those who were 21 years old on the ground that they could be presumed to be still minor. Third, all unmarried women in the age-group of 21 and 25. This, it was argued, could be done on the ground that they were now married and no longer in their place of original residence. The Commission’s Secretary, Mr Ganesan, and his team discovered this during spot checking in five districts. At one house, Mr Ganesan asked: “Is this lady dead?” The lady smiled and said: “I am very much alive.” Then she added after a pause: “Can I offer you tea --- provided you are willing to take it from a ghost!” 

Clearly, the Congress (I) was hell-bent on getting the West Bengal poll postponed and President’s rule imposed. The eight-lakh complaints were part of the overall strategy of creating basic doubts about the rolls. Mrs Gandhi’s statement that 30 per cent of the rolls were bogus was not based on any solid information. Asked by newsmen later as to the basis for her allegation, Mrs Gandhi replied: “I was told so.” True Mrs Gandhi did declare publicly that she would not topple the Jyoti Basu Government and impose President’s rule. But then she was aware of two things. First, any toppling of the Jyoti Basu Government would have been counter-productive. Second, leading Congress (I) men in the State, including Mr A.K. Sen, were confident of achieving the same end by somehow getting the poll postponed beyond June 1982. Consequently, in the overall stratagem facts became less important than fiction. But in the exercise, the Congress (I) reckoned without the Supreme Court and the statutory authority vested in the Election Commission to function independently. 

In fact, veteran parliamentarians have complimented the Commission for not only asserting its independence but energetically backing this up with meaningful action. The Commission was, for instance, not required to go to the Supreme Court. It could easily have left it to the Congress (I) and the Marxists in West Bengal to fight it out. Instead, it realised its own responsibility in ensuring a free and fair poll and not allowing any party or authority, howsoever powerful, to undermine the basic scheme of things under the Constitution. Its 35-page affidavit before the Supreme Court made matters crystal clear. Even as the Supreme Court was busy hearing the case it went ahead with poll preparations and, to the surprise of expert published the final rolls just a day after the Court’s verdict. It could have easily taken two weeks or more for the purpose. But Commission was anxious to have the election at the earliest and proposed May 9 for the poll. However, this was changed to May 19 when Calcutta asked for a little more time. 

Happily, the Election Commission has been exercising its authority under the Constitution to superintend, direct and control the conduct of elections. It gave the U.P. Government ample opportunity to propose fresh dates for the repoll in Garhwal. When Lucknow failed to “play ball”, to quote one authority, the Commission was left with no choice but to virtually direct that the poll be held on May 19 together with the elections elsewhere. Unknown to most people, the West Bengal Government found itself ticked off by the Commission on several occasions when it did not have or tried to treat the Chief Electoral Officer as its own subordinate. (The Chief Electoral Officers are expected to be responsible only to the Commission. But this does not happen in practice leading to another issue and several suggestions. The Commission would be happy to have a CEO cadre of its own.) The present Commission, it may be recalled, was the first to order intensive revision of the rolls in Assam in May-June 1979 for the Lok Sabha by-election from Mangaldoi following complaints. Significantly, over 45,000 foreigners were detected on the rolls in one parliamentary constituency alone! 

The Commission has asserted its sturdy independence in several other cases too. Of interest is the recent re-election to the Rajya Sabha of the BJP leader, Mr L.K. Advani, last month. Not many know that he almost missed the boat because of a manoeuvre by some Congress (I) supporters but for a timely eleventh-hour decision by the Election Commission. In August last, Mr Advani changed his residence from Gujarat to Gwalior in Madhya Pradesh, manifestly to ensure his re-election. He was registered as a voter in September by the present Electoral Registration Officer. The name was also incorporated in the rolls early this year following summary revision. But on March 9 ten days before the filing of nominations on March 19 --- two persons challenged his registration. The Registration Officer thereupon pasted a notice at the house of Mr Advani’s sister on the evening of March 12 asking him to show cause by March 16 why his name should not be struck off. March 13 and 14 were closed days. Advani, then busy with Parliament in Delhi, soon rushed to Gwalior and on March 15 filed a writ before the Gwalior bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on the plea of mala fide intention. He also moved the Election Commission simultaneously. The High Court and the Commission gave him stay the same day. On March 18, the Chief Election Commissioner heard the case and directed the Registration Officer “not to proceed in the matter.” 

What does all this add up to? The Election Commission and, more specifically, the Chief Election Commissioner, MrShakdher, has acted over the years in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The Commission’s independence is vital for the health of our democracy --- a factor emphasised in recent years by Jaya Prakash Narayan. In fact, JP feared that a one-man Commission was liable to be pressurised easily and he, therefore, expressed himself in favour of a three-man Commission. Theoretically, a three-man Commission does appear to be a better proposition. But some experts doubt if such a Commission could have acted as decisively and promptly as done by the present Commission in the West Bengal and other cases. The question deserves the nation’s attention especially as this high office will fall vacant on June 18 when MrShakdher, 63, is due to retire. The rules framed by the Government provide for a Chief Election Commissioner to retire at the age of 65 or at the end of a 5-year tenure, whichever is earlier. In the final analysis, one thing alone is clear, India’s Constitution is basically sound. What we need is right men in right places. --- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)