E-Paper
3 former EC chiefs back poll panel’s plan to mandate info on financial effect of sops
Three former chief election commissioners (CECs) have backed the Election Commission of India (ECI) proposal to add a form detailing the fiscal implications of all poll promises made by political parties in the model code of conduct (MCC)
Three former chief election commissioners (CECs) have backed the Election Commission of India (ECI) proposal to add a form detailing the fiscal implications of all poll promises made by political parties in the model code of conduct (MCC).
In a note updated on its website on Tuesday, ECI said it “proposes to supplement existing MCC guidelines and mandate political parties to inform voters at large about the financial ramifications of their promises in manifesto” in a move that it said was “aimed at assessing feasibility of implementation of such promises...”
The poll body sought feedback from political parties by October 19, after which it will make the required amendments in MCC. The decision came amid a heated political debate over the use of freebies in electoral campaigns.
“It is another bold step which will have a far reaching positive impact in ushering an era of financial probity and reforms in the electoral process,” said Sunil Arora, who was CEC from 2019 to 2021.
According to former CEC Navin Chawla, who served from April 2009 to July 2010, the EC has been writing for over 25 years to several governments trying to bring some order to muscle and money power and their influence over elections. “But despite many attempts, we find several hundred crores that no one acknowledges or owns. We also employ hundreds of officers to check money power as observers. Therefore, EC has been very clear on the subject. Unwarranted black money power used to fund elections needs to be checked,” he said.
“This initiative taken by CEC Rajiv Kumar, is from my point of view, a wholly welcome and wholesome step. I believe it is within the power of the Commission. We do have the MCC, and this falls well within the mandate of that. Various courts have upheld this power of the EC in several judgments have upheld the MCC,” the former CEC, who is also the author of the book Every Vote Counts said.
Former CEC SY Quraishi, who held top post from 2010 to 2012, said the commission did not come into the picture on its own and was nudged by the Supreme Court (SC). “The first guidelines for manifestos came in 2013, where SC directed ECI to formulate them in consultation with the political parties. Now, SC has again directed the poll body to get involved in the debate a second time based on a new public interest litigation,” he said. “ECI had expressed its reservations in clearest terms.”
But he said that ECI may be overstepping its remit.
“The commission does not have either the mandate or the wherewithal to sit in judgment on what promises in the manifestos are feasible and what are not. This is the domain of the legislatures. They should not be debating it. ECI should strictly stay away from that debate as a constitutional body,” Quraishi said. “Drawing them into what is clearly political arena is totally unfair and undesirable and can spell disaster.”
Former CEC N Gopalaswami, who held the post from 2006 to 2009, said “This is nothing new, the Supreme Court itself said that any political party giving freebies must indicate how they intend to fund them, EC is following that,” he said.
A former CEC, who wished not to be named, said that the amendment may create a lot of issues. “Either the commission has to make a general principle restriction that no political party can promise something that is non-constitutional and make it a disqualifying condition, or it sets up a body of stakeholders to define the paradigm of taking advantage of MCC,” he said.
A second former CEC, who also requested anonymity, said it would be prudent to wait for the political parties to comment. “There are legal, constitutional and competitive issues. First, who defines what is freebie and what is a welfare scheme,” he said. “Moreover, the commission should not wade into the matters of the executive as far as a state’s finances are concerned.”
Constitutional law expert Subhash Kashyap, who was earlier former secretary general of the Lok Sabha, said anything regarding elections was with the jurisdiction of ECI. “They are entitled to issue directions under the code of conduct. There are no limits short of legislation and constitutional amendments, there is no constitutional limit to the power of ECI,” he added.
An ECI official said the commission was not wading into the freebie issue and all promises with financial implications had to be clearly stated. “It’s part of the disclosure,” the official said. “The party has to fill the form since it will become a part of MCC. In case they do not, then ECI will inform voters that they have failed to do so,” said the official, requesting anonymity.
The issue of freebies has acquired strong political overtones with a debate ranging over definitions, the distinction between freebies and welfare, and the concept of fiscal federalism itself. Many opposition parties, including the Aam Aadmi Party in Delhi and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in Tamil Nadu, see the attack on freebies as an attack on themselves.
In January, BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay filed a public interest litigation seeking checks on the election campaign practice of political parties promising freebies and subsidies in exchange for votes. The case is still being heard by the Supreme Court.
The issue also came to the fore on July 16 , when Prime Minister Narendra Modi remarked in a public address, “Attempts are being made to collect votes by distributing free revdis (sweets). This revdi culture is very dangerous for the development of the country.” Revdis are typically religious offerings or donations.
