Pragmatism demands we move with the time and adjust our regulations to the changing and evolving situations
Ever since Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s interview to the ANI news agency, which was broadcast on several TV channels, a day before the first phase of the Uttar Pradesh elections when “silence period” was in operation, my phone has not stopped ringing. Media persons have been asking for clarification whether this was a violation of the electoral laws and the model code of conduct. To compound the problem, after this interview, the very next day, the prime minister gave a public speech at Saharanpur when the poll was going on in the neighbourhood. And subsequently, before the second phase, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath gave another interview.
Many people reminded us of a similar violation in 2017 by Rahul Gandhi for which he was indicted by the Election Commission. FIRs were filed against him as a criminal offence.
Several years before that, NDTV had broadcast an opinion poll during the period when there was a ban on this and several FIRs were filed against Prannoy Roy and the said news channel at different places.
In this background, the common question is the violation of the provisions of the laws and the model code of conduct in the “silent period”.
Click here to know more about Assembly Elections 2022
Let us first see what the law says: Section 126, the Representation of People Act, 1951 lays down the following:
Prohibition of public meetings during period of 48 hours ending with hour fixed for conclusion of poll –
(1). No person shall –
(a) convene, hold, attend, join, or address any public meeting or procession in connection with an election; or
(b) display to the public any election matter by means of cinematograph, television or other similar apparatus –
(2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of this section shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine or with both.
(3) In this section the expression ‘election matter’ means any matter intended or calculated to influence or affect the result of an election.
The problem is not new. For years, complaints have been pouring in regarding the violation of this section. This has been aggravated by multiphase elections, which seem to be the root cause of these complaints.
Prime Minister Modi’s speech cannot be legally questioned, though ethical questions are raised because law has to be followed not only in letter but also in spirit. Modi was “campaigning” in an area where no silence zone was in operation and where campaigning was allowed. People questioned it since his speech was carried by all TV channels across boundaries of the phases where the ban was in operation. The question is how can an electronic signal be barred from being seen in the silent zone. In view of this technical impossibility, I feel the time has come to reconsider Section 126 altogether.
Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 prohibits public meetings, processions and electronic media campaigns. It, however, allows door-to-door campaigns, and print media campaigns during the silent period. My suggestion is that an electronic campaign, which is technically impossible to stop, must be permitted. Since all parties will have this facility, the level-playing field will be ensured. On the other hand, door-to-door campaigns should be banned because the spirit of this silence period is that after a blitzkrieg of different campaigns, the voters should have a quiet time to reflect on the choices before them and decide who they’re going to vote for. Door-to-door campaigns can be troublesome, often resulting in arguments and quarrels. It is also in this period that voters are bribed with liquor, money or other goodies. It is not possible for the Election Commission to check it fully, especially as these transactions take place in the dark of the night.
Complaints against a leader making a speech or giving an interview outside the silence zone put undue pressure on the Election Commission. It’s Hobson’s choice: Should they go by the letter of the law, or the spirit of the law?
In my opinion, there is only one solution: Section 126 of the RP Act should be amended. All electronic campaigns (alongside the already permitted print media) must be allowed, but the physical contact be stopped, namely the door-to-door campaign. This is all the more important in the Covid era when the physical proximity of even one person can be dangerous.
There is another dimension to the problem — the tenability of multi-phase election. At the time when multi-phase elections were introduced, the situation was radically different. The muscle power was rampant. Murders on the day of poll or during the campaign period were a common occurrence. In the middle of the 1990s, TN Seshan introduced the deployment of central armed police forces, commonly called paramilitary forces. Since the number of security personnel made available to the Election Commission was limited, not enough to cover all the identified sensitive and hypersensitive polling booths, the same force was rotated from one phase to the other. This led to the introduction of multiple phases.
While this measure definitely made elections peaceful, in the electronic age and, more recently, the social media age, it has created more problems than it has solved. While the forces take three to five days in moving from one phase to the other, the criminals can move much faster and land up at the next phase within a few hours. Rumours and fake news spread in seconds which, in a prolonged period of multiple phases, has disastrous consequences.
Now the question would be whether going back to the single-phase poll would ensure peaceful elections. My feeling is that it is certainly possible, with a range of steps introduced by the Election Commission in the last two decades. The EC has introduced vulnerability mapping of polling stations which clearly identifies potential troublemakers who are brought to book under the CRPC with a bond for good conduct. Campaigns to seize illegal arms have been effective. Even licensed arms are ordered to be surrendered. Most importantly, the non-bailable warrants (NBW) against criminals which used to stay unexecuted under political pressure for months and even years with the absconders reported as “untraceable” (while they could be seen moving freely and even appearing regularly on page three of the newspapers), are now a thing of the past. Every single NBW is executed under the watch of the EC. The criminals are kept under video watch 24×7, with nearly a lakh video cameras roaming around.
A single-phase election would require the availability of a sufficient number of central armed police personnel which every political party now demands. Currently, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) makes available, say, 10-12 hundred companies for nearly three months for a seven-phase election. If the number of companies could be increased to 3,000 and their deployment period reduced to two weeks, this can easily reduce the duration of the campaign period, without jeopardising the security deployment in sensitive areas.
Even a national election can easily be completed in 30-35 days, instead of 2-3 months as presently. A prolonged election creates its own problem of an extended campaign full of communal and caste tensions and abuse of money power. This will also take care of the constant irritant of opinion and exit polls instructions getting violated regularly.
Pragmatism demands we move with time and adjust our regulations to the changing and evolving situations. And the sooner we do it, the better. It will take away a lot of vitiation of the purity of the poll process.
The writer is former Chief Election Commissioner of India and the author of ‘An Undocumented Wonder: The Making of the Great Indian Election’. Views expressed are personal.
Read all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News,
India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.