The role of the Election Commission of India (ECI) in the light of the evolution of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) can be discussed as follows:
The ECI is a constitutional body responsible for conducting and overseeing elections in India. The ECI plays a crucial role in ensuring that elections in India are free, fair, and transparent. One of the key responsibilities of the ECI is to enforce the MCC during the election period.
The MCC is a set of guidelines issued by the ECI for the conduct of political parties and candidates during elections mainly with respect to speeches, polling day, polling booths, portfolios, election manifestos, processions, and general conduct. The MCC aims to maintain a level playing field for all contestants, prevent communal or caste-based appeals, avoid corruption and undue influence, and uphold the dignity and decorum of public life.
The MCC has evolved over time through various consultations, recommendations, and judicial interventions. The origin of the MCC can be traced back to 1960, when the ECI issued some instructions to political parties regarding election meetings and speeches in Kerala. In 1962, the ECI circulated a draft code of conduct to all recognised parties for their views. In 1968, the ECI held a conference with all recognised parties and adopted a common code of conduct for all elections. In 1974, the ECI revised and expanded the code to include guidelines on election manifestos, party funds, and anti-defection. In 1991, the ECI added more provisions on public meetings, processions, vehicles, loudspeakers, and media coverage. In 2013, the ECI issued new guidelines on election expenditure, social media, opinion polls, and exit polls.
The MCC has also been influenced by various judicial pronouncements and legislative amendments. Some of the landmark cases are:
S. Subramaniam Balaji v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (2013): The Supreme Court held that freebies promised by political parties in their manifestos disturb the level playing field and vitiate the electoral process. The court directed the ECI to frame guidelines on election manifestos in consultation with political parties.
Common Cause v. Union of India (2014): The Supreme Court held that ministers cannot use public funds or official machinery for electioneering purposes and directed the ECI to ensure compliance with the MCC by all ministers and public servants.
Harbans Singh Jalal v. Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 126A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, which prohibits publication or broadcast of exit polls during a multi-phase election until the last phase is over.
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2020): The Supreme Court issued notice to the ECI on a plea seeking directions to debar persons with criminal antecedents from contesting elections or forming political parties.
The role of the ECI in enforcing the MCC has been commendable and proactive. The ECI has taken various measures such as issuing advisories, notices, warnings, censures, reprimands, orders, and directions to political parties and candidates for any violation or potential violation of the MCC. The ECI has also set up various mechanisms such as general observers, expenditure observers, media certification and monitoring committees, flying squads, static surveillance teams, video surveillance teams, complaint redressal system, voter helpline app, cVIGIL app, etc., to monitor and ensure compliance with the MCC.
However, there are also some challenges and limitations faced by the ECI in enforcing the MCC. Some of them are:
The MCC is not a statutory or legal document but a moral or ethical code based on consensus and cooperation among political parties. Hence, it lacks legal enforceability and sanction.
The ECI has limited resources and manpower to effectively monitor and check every violation or potential violation of the MCC across a vast and diverse country like India.
The ECI faces resistance and non-cooperation from some political parties and candidates who try to evade or defy its authority or question its impartiality or credibility.
The ECI has to deal with new and emerging issues such as social media campaigns, fake news, hate speech, misinformation, etc., which pose new challenges for ensuring free and fair elections.
In conclusion, the role of the ECI in enforcing the MCC has been significant and praiseworthy in strengthening democracy and electoral integrity in India. However, there is also scope for improvement and reform in making the MCC more effective and robust. Some possible suggestions are:
The MCC should be given statutory or legal backing by incorporating it in an act of parliament or making it part of an oath or affirmation taken by political parties and candidates.
The ECI should be given more powers and resources to enforce the MCC and impose penalties or sanctions for its violation, such as disqualification, de-recognition, forfeiture of deposits, etc.
The ECI should enhance its coordination and collaboration with other stakeholders such as civil society, media, judiciary, security forces, etc., to ensure compliance with the MCC.
The ECI should update and revise the MCC periodically to address new and emerging issues and challenges in the electoral process.