On January 7, Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Rajiv Kumar assured the country that “no Delhi-specific provision can be made in the Union Budget that can disturb the level playing field”. He was responding to media questions about the timing of the Delhi elections — just four days after the presentation of the Budget — and apprehensions that the central government might use the Budget to tilt the contest in the BJP’s favour. Cut to February 2, the day after the “historic announcement” of tax exemptions for the middle class in the Budget. The Prime Minister hailed it in his campaign speech as “the most middle-class friendly Budget in the history of the country”. Just in case the connection with the Delhi election was unclear, the BJP issued a front-page advertisement the next day, flashing “Modi Government’s Gift for Delhi” in the Budget.
This was not the only instance. The conduct of the Election Commission of India (ECI) during the Delhi assembly elections reminds you of Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor over the last 10 years. If AAP’s allegations about voter list manipulations were hyped up, the ECI’s response and action were evasive. AAP leaders were shrill, not unusual for a political party during elections. But the ECI, a constitutional authority, was combative, as if it were a player, not an umpire. Its search at the Punjab chief minister’s residence in Delhi seemed like the ED and CBI raids. The alacrity with which it responded to Arvind Kejriwal’s false, utterly irresponsible allegation about the Haryana government poisoning Yamuna water would have been salutary, if not for the stupefaction with which this ECI had heard similar, or even worse, vitriol from the BJP, ranging from local leaders to Yogi Adityanath and, indeed, the PM himself.
Story continues below this ad
Not to put too fine a point on it, the Election Commission of India has now become a joke. I say this with deep anguish, as someone who respects its authority, who has been an unabashed admirer of the ECI, who was once called upon by the ECI to address Election Commissioners from all over the world about the achievements of India’s electoral democracy. Keeping quiet now would be to disregard the sacred role of this august constitutional body.
As Rajiv Kumar retires this month, our constitutional system faces a stark choice. Either the Supreme Court intervenes to ensure that the next CEC is chosen through a fairer system and can be trusted to display at least a modicum of fairness, neutrality and transparency. Or we could be headed towards an irreversible political crisis, as in our neighbourhood where election outcomes are routinely disputed.
To be fair, Kumar is not entirely and personally responsible for the current state of this once-great institution. He comes at the end of a long process. During the first 40 years of its existence, the one-member ECI acted like an extension of the Government of India, rarely exercising the powers granted by the Constitution. Complaints of electoral irregularities and bias towards the ruling Congress were not unheard of. Yet, except allegations of large-scale fraud in West Bengal in 1972 or Jammu and Kashmir in 1987, these disputes did not generally implicate the ECI. It was administratively subservient to the government, but not visibly subservient to the ruling party.
Story continues below this ad
It took T N Seshan to disrupt business as usual and claim the constitutional powers of the ECI in 1990 By all accounts, he was no democrat. But his bull-in-a-china-shop adventures, adequately moderated by the Supreme Court and the appointment of two other commissioners, served to push this sleepy institution into a phase of fierce independence. This phase lasted till 2004, covering the tenure of M S Gill and J M Lyngdoh. Minus the theatrics of Seshan, both his successors continued the assertion of constitutional independence, robust neutrality, professionalisation and willingness to confront recalcitrant political leaders, as in Gujarat in 2002. This was the golden age of the ECI, which coincided with a very high rate of defeat of incumbents and the rise of coalition governments.
The period from 2004 till 2018 was marked by routinisation. Instead of taking the earlier initiatives forward to ensure a truly level playing field, the ECI took the safe but fair way out. CECs avoided any confrontation but the ECI’s independence had become a norm and an exercise of autonomy was now a habit. Underneath there were signs of slow corrosion and deviations from political neutrality. Notwithstanding his unblemished record as CEC, it was a shame to see M S Gill become a party man, an MP and a minister, post his retirement. The appointment of Navin Chawla (who passed away last week), considered close to the Gandhi family, as the CEC was bound to raise eyebrows, though his conduct in the office was not as controversial. After 2014, appointments to the ECI showed a distinct preference for politically pliant bureaucrats.
With the appointment of Sunil Arora as CEC in December 2018, the ECI entered the current phase of loss of institutional autonomy and political neutrality. Two critical episodes — Ashok Lavasa’s persecution (and subsequent appointment in the Asian Development Bank) and Arun Goel’s abrupt resignation (and subsequent appointment as Ambassador) — sounded the death knell for any voice of dissent within the Commission. By all accounts, Rajiv Kumar took this slide one step forward, from non-dissent to apparent collusion.
Lest we forget, the many dubious achievements of the current CEC must be put on record. The current CEC played a role in the first clear instance of US-style communal “gerrymandering” (partisan drawing of electoral boundaries) in carrying out the delimitation of parliamentary and assembly constituencies in Assam, which happened to favour the BJP. He oversaw one of the rare and controversial “uncontested” parliamentary elections (Surat, 2024) in a non-conflict area. Under him, the ECI raised opacity to new heights by brazenly stonewalling information on turnout and discrepancy between votes polled and counted. Worse, the rule that mandated transparency was diluted. The ECI assured the One Nation, One Election committee that the system was ready to hold simultaneous elections to all assemblies along with the Lok Sabha, while failing to hold simultaneous elections to four state assemblies in 2024. In general, the electoral calendar drawn during his tenure — remember the four-phase polling in Odisha — has shown uncanny alignment with the BJP’s campaign priorities. During this period, opposition parties have refused to accept outcomes of state assembly elections. The ECI has not only not paid heed to the Opposition’s pleas, it has started a new practice of combative communication with the Opposition and threatening dissenters. Under his stewardship, the ECI has suffered a sharp fall in popular trust, a fact recorded by the Lokniti-CSDS surveys.
most read
So, has the ECI hit rock bottom? Thankfully, not yet. We have still not reached the stage that Vladimir Y Churov took Russia’s Central Election Commission to during 2007-16. Our CEC does not display public loyalty to the supreme leader, as Churov did for Putin. Unlike Russia, the opposition parties and candidates are not disqualified from contesting. Unlike Pakistan, counting of votes is not stopped and reversed mid-way. Gerrymandering is still an exception, not the norm. Given that the people may not tolerate electoral fraud, some appearances are maintained.
India’s beleaguered democracy simply cannot afford one more Rajiv Kumar. The Supreme Court has to decide whether to allow the government to appoint the next CEC through the present method of the government-dominated committee or to insist on an independent mechanism as per the court’s original order. The future of our constitutional democracy hangs on this.
The writer is member, Swaraj India, and national convenor of Bharat Jodo Abhiyaan. Views are personal
