The single biggest threat to free and fair elections is the misuse of funds for electoral purposes. It is generally accepted that candidates nominated by political parties far exceed the statutory limits. Political parties receive funds — some legitimately, but, in many cases, avoid the ₹20,000 disclosure limit by slipping in amounts just below the reporting threshold. Sadly, the electoral bonds scheme, introduced in 2018, is another route to anonymity. Whichever way, “money power” militates against transparency.
For over
The single biggest threat to free and fair elections is the misuse of funds for electoral purposes. It is generally accepted that candidates nominated by political parties far exceed the statutory limits. Political parties receive funds — some legitimately, but, in many cases, avoid the ₹20,000 disclosure limit by slipping in amounts just below the reporting threshold. Sadly, the electoral bonds scheme, introduced in 2018, is another route to anonymity. Whichever way, “money power” militates against transparency.
For over 25 years, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has addressed different governments, suggesting remedies against this misuse of money. One only has to go to the ECI website to see the reform proposals compiled by it to restore a level-playing field. Unfortunately, all these proposals have been largely ignored. Neither the government nor the Opposition — not even a single member — sought a serious discussion on ECI’s reform proposals. In other words, the entire political establishment favoured the status quo. Whatever few reforms materialised were due to the Supreme Court (SC). As a result, in every election, vast amounts of unaccounted money are uncovered by our observers.
In the recent past, ECI has succeeded to some extent. Other than the eight national parties and 54 state-recognised political parties, there are as many as 2,900 “registered unrecognised political parties” (RUPPs). Most RUPPs have never contested an election, behaving like shell companies whose main purpose could be to avail of income tax benefits or park illicit money. ECI nudged the Central Board of Taxes (CBDT) to investigate this issue. This brought to the surface serious financial improprieties, including bogus donation receipts, bogus purchase transactions, and also non-disclosure as required under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. As a result, ECI has succeeded in delisting more than 500 RUPPs in the last four months, something we attempted in 2006-07, but without success.
Last week, a debate was stoked by ECI’s decision to propose an amendment to the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) asking political parties to come clean on the fiscal costs of political promises made during elections. ECI said it hoped to enable a healthy debate on the immediate and long-term financial implications of implementing these promises. The decision came even as a public interest litigation on freebies and subsidies being offered as electoral sops was being heard in the SC.
But this is not a new matter. It was in 2013 that the SC, in the Subramaniam Balaji case, examined the issue, and directed ECI to frame guidelines in consultation with political parties to look into fiscal-related promises incorporated in election manifestos.
The order stated: “We hereby direct the Election Commission to frame guidelines for the same in consultation with all the recognised political parties. In the similar way, a separate head for guidelines for election manifesto released by a political party can also be included in the Model Code of Conduct for the guidance of political parties & candidates. We are mindful of the fact that generally political parties release their election manifesto before the announcement of [the] election date…an exception can be made in this regard as the purpose of [the] election manifesto is directly associated with the election process.”
It went on to say: “We hereby direct the Election Commission to take up this task as early as possible owing to its utmost importance. We also record the need for a separate legislation to be passed by the legislature in this regard for governing the political parties in our democratic society.”
Upon receiving these directions, ECI held a consultation on August 12, 2013, with recognised national and state parties and took note of their (conflicting) views on the matter.
Thereafter, the following guidelines were issued and incorporated as Part VIII of MCC 2015: “Having due regard to the above directions of the Supreme Court and after consultation with the political parties, the commission, in the interest of free and fair elections, hereby directs that political parties and candidates while releasing election manifestos for any election to the Parliament or state legislatures, shall adhere to the following guidelines... In the interest of transparency, level playing field and credibility of promises, it is expected that manifestos also reflect the rationale for the promises and broadly indicate the ways and means to meet the financial requirements for it. Trust of voters should be sought only on those promises which are possible to be fulfilled.”
The SC has, once again, directed ECI to take this debate up with political parties. It is to be expected that many political parties will oppose the proposal on the grounds that any insistence on mandatory disclosure relating to the fiscal sustainability of electoral promises will be in violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers.
In the forthcoming consultation between ECI and political parties, the goal should be to attack the scourge of black money usage to ensure a level-playing field. Many will argue in favour of fiscal federalism. Yet, there is a need to put a brake on reckless promises that cannot be fulfilled, or those that deplete the exchequer such as offering freebies like free television sets, or schemes disguised to provide free water or power, without any thought to fiscal prudence. In this consultation, it will be good to discuss the issues raised over the years of black money use, which, above all, jeopardises free and fair elections.
Navin B Chawla is former chief election commissioner and author of Every Vote Counts
The views expressed are personal
One Subscription.
Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines
to 100 year archives.
Archives
HT App & Website