REWIND
New Delhi, 15 February 2024
POLL BODY, PRESSURES & INDEPENDENCE
By Inder Jit
(Released on 10 February 1990)
India has once again proved its claim to being the world’s biggest
democracy. Nearly 300 million people exercised their franchise recently and
brought about a smooth change of Government. The country is again poised to
hold elections in eight States and one Union Territory --- this time to the
Assemblies. Outwardly, the electoral system has worked well. Inwardly, however,
it is sick and leaves much to be desired. Happily, the Prime Minister, Mr V.P.
Singh, convened on January 9 an all-party meeting for consultation on electoral
reforms. Subsequently, a 12-member Committee came to be constituted to go into
all aspects of electoral reforms and submit its report to the Government
expeditiously for required legislative and other action. Most of the maladies of our electoral system are well
known so also the available remedies. But of crucial importance to free and
fair elections and to the future of our democracy is the need to ensure the
Election Commission’s vital independence which, most sadly, has come to face
mounting threat from India’s rulers during the past seven years and more.
Not many are aware that the former Government, headed by Mr. Rajiv
Gandhi, wanted the Chief Election Commissioner, Mr R.V.S. Peri Sastri, time and
again to so hold various elections and by-elections as would load the dice in
favour of the Congress-I. The powers that be, for instance, wanted the Presidential
poll to precede the election to the Haryana Assembly in 1987. But Mr Peri
Sastri refused to compromise with the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
The Haryana poll, which swept Mr Devi Lal and his Lok Dal to power, was held on
June 17 and the Presidential poll on July 13. On June 16, 1988, the ruling
Congress-I demanded a repoll in the Lok Sabha by- election from Faridabad
following widespread violence and booth capturing. The CEC again declined to
oblige. Instead, he ordered a repoll in 161 polling stations. Matters again
worsened over the revision of the electoral rolls in Assam. The CEC was even
accused of siding with the AGP in his interpretation of the Assam Accord. But
he refused to be bullied by the Government.
Various pressures were thereafter mounted on Mr Peri Sastri to force him
to resign. But these too failed. A new strategy was then forged for a “take
over” of the Election Commission. On October 9 last, a Presidential
notification was issued out of the blue clearing the way for a three-member
Election Commission. A week later, Mr. S.S. Dhanoa, a retired IAS official, and
Mr V.S. Seigell, a retired IB official, were sworn in as the Commissioners. All
the formalities were completed in record time, notwithstanding the Government’s
earlier opposition to the proposal. On December 16, 1988, Mr Gandhi himself
turned down in the Rajya Sabha a demand for a multi-member Election Commission
and stated: “This demand means that some Opposition members have no faith in
the single-member Commission”. Again, the appointment of the two Commissioners
was justified on the ground of an increase in the work-load following reduction
in the voting age to 18 years. Yet, the additional workload had already been
handled by Mr Peri Sastri and the rolls revised earlier --- by the end of
August.
Some of Mr. Gandhi’s aides expected Mr. Peri Sastri to quit in disgust.
Not one of the names suggested by him for additional appointment as
Commissioners was accepted by the Government. (One name suggested was that of
the senior-most among the Chief Electoral Officers in the State.) Worse, Mr
Peri Sastri was reduced to a minority in the Commission. However, he kept his
cool and decided to face the new challenge. This came barely a day later. Early
on October 17, the Government decided on its own to hold the General Election
on November 22 and even made its decision public. This was wholly improper as
the decision is the prerogative of the Election Commission. Expectedly, Mr.
Peri Sastri was livid and refused to ditto the formal announcement. However, he
decided to overlook the impropriety in the larger interest of democracy and a
timely poll. (Remember, there was repeated talk then about the possibility of
the Rajiv Government somehow postponing the poll by a year or more but the CEC
eventually made the announcement only after he was able to sound the Opposition
leaders and secure their acceptance of the dates.)
The fat was again in the fire before the day was out. The Government, I
learn, wanted the Election Commission to announce its programme for the general
election on October 17 itself and simultaneously make the required
recommendation to the President for issuance of the formal notification for the
general election. This was intended to give the Opposition leaders even less
time to put their act together and ensure a one-to-one fight against the
Congress-I. This was viewed by the CEC as grossly unfair and improper. He,
therefore, declined, leading to a fresh crisis. (Even the Prime Minister’s
Principal Secretary was constrained to call on Mr Peri Sastri during the course
of the drama-packed day.) In fact, things came to such a pass that some of Mr.
Gandhi's top advisers explored at one stage the possibility of summoning
Parliament to oust Mr Peri Sastri. (The CEC can be removed only in like manner
as a Supreme Court Judge.) Fortunately, good sense prevailed at the highest
level. Mr Peri Sastri was allowed to have his way. The President was able to
issue the poll notification only on October 22.
Not just that. Information available to me before I left for Darjeeling
on October 28 to contest the Lok Sabha poll shows that the decision to go in
for a three-member Election Commission was mainly calculated to put maximum
spokes in the Janata Dal’s wheel. The Janata Dal, it may be recalled, had
claimed the poll symbol of the erstwhile Janata Party, namely, a farmer with a
haldar, following its birth through the merger of the Janata Party and the Lok
Dal. But this claim was disputed by Dr Subramanian Swamy on behalf of the Janata
Party and by Mr. R.N. Kushwaha on behalf of the Lok Dal. Both Mr Dhanoa and Mr
Seigell wanted the Janata Dal denied recognition as a national party and
allotment of any reserve symbo1, pending a final decision on the dispute. But
Mr Peri Shatri was able to ensure fair play prior to the poll by handling the
matter deftly. The Janata Dal as well as the Janata Party and the Lok Dal were
allotted reserve symbols in an interim order with the consent of all the three
parties. The Janata Dal would surely not have bagged as many seats had it been
forced to fight the po1l on free (and confusing) symbols from constituency to
constituency!
One question arises. What can be done to ensure the independence of the
Election Commission? Or, as the respected Dr H.N. Kuzru put it to Dr Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly: Can something be done to “provide such safeguards as
will give general satisfaction that our electoral machinery will be free not
only from provincial political influences but also from the central political
influences.” The Jayaprakash Narayan Committee on Electoral Reforms as also the
earlier Joint Parliamentary Committee on Amendments to Election Law favoured a
multi-member Election Commission. The idea is no doubt sound in theory. But, as
Mr. S.L. Shakdhar, formerly Chief Election Commissioner, told me in his time:
“The proposal is not practicable. I could not have ordered a repoll in Garhwal
promptly and thereby prevented the place from going up in smoke if I was not a
one-man Commission.” Mr Peri Sastri’s view is no different. In fact, the recent
three-member Commission proved to be a near disaster, hamstringing speedy
action time and again.
How does one ensure that the one-man Commission will be fair and
impartial? We have had among our CECs Dr. S.L. Shakdher and Mr. Peri Sastri on
the one hand and Mr R.K. Trivedi on the other. (Remember, Mr. Trivedi was
rewarded with a Governorship for his good work!) Various suggestions have been
made over the years. The BJP President, Mr L.K. Advani, would like the Chief
Election Commissioner barred from being appointed to any office of profit after
retirement. Some want the CEC to be appointed by the Chief Justice of India and
to senior Chief Justices of the State High Courts. Others want the CEC to be
chosen by the President, the Vice President and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha---
or by the Government in consultation with the Opposition. However, we need to
remember one basic truth: a process of consultation does not guarantee
anything, specially in our feudal environment. A formal ban on the CEC from
holding any office on retirement is highly desirable and should help.
Ultimately, we must think in terms of an arrangement which would enable him to
get what he needs most: moral authority.
Fortunately, the Election Commission has reportedly came forward with a
suggestion, described as “the ideal arrangement”. The Chief Election
Commissioner, it is proposed, should come to be chosen on the basis of his
professional expertise, experience and seniority like the Chief Justice of
India in accordance with established convention. Such an arrangement, we are
told, could be evolved by establishing another all-India cadre: the Indian
Election Service. The Chief Election Commissioner could then be chosen from the
service itself --- from among persons designated Chief Electoral Officers and
accorded the same status as the Chief Secretary in a state. Even today we have
Chief Electoral Officers in the States. They are, however, a part of the
administration and open to political pressures both from the State Governments
and the Centre. An Indian Election Service, which would essentially be skeleton
in character, could provide the answer. The Commission’s proposal merits
serious consideration. – INFA
(Copyright,
India News & Feature Alliance)
|