Dear Editor,
Lok Sabha election dates, to be conducted in 7 phases beginning from April 19 and ending on June 1, have been announced with results to be announced on June 4. Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar has warned against hate speeches. But unfortunately, even in normal course, hate speech rules the roost whereas attack on faulty policies and programmes has been taking back seat. Warning has been issued against spread of fake news and personal attacks. The warning must be translated into action to punish those who violate the warnings. Unless exemplary punishment is given to the violators, the warnings will be taken in lighter vein. All the warnings issued now were there in the previous elections. But no tangible progress in the reduction of violations has been seen. After February 14, the three-member Election Commission had been functioning with Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar and another Election Commissioner Arun Goel. After the resignation tendered by Anup Chandra Pandey on March 8, the Commission was left with the Chief Election Commissioner alone till March 14. Now it is full-fledged Commission with the vacancies filled up on March 15 and with the two retired bureaucrats Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Sandhu reporting for duty. Earlier the Election Commission was one-man Commission. It was made multi-member body to checkmate T.N. Sheshan. The law enacted in 2023 excluded the Chief Justice of India from the Selection Committee in the appointment of Election Commissioners. Under the new law, the panel comprises of the Prime Minister as head, his cabinet minister and the leader of the opposition. Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) moved the Supreme Court to get stay order for the appointment of election commissioners to the existing vacancies without the Chief Justice in the selection committee. But the Supreme Court refused to pass stay order. What is noticeable is that the law makers do not think what is advantageous to them today as ruling party may be disadvantageous to them tomorrow when they occupy the opposition benches. They also do not think what is disadvantageous to them today may be advantageous to them tomorrow when they take over as ruling party. It is natural for the public to think that the Prime Minister and his cabinet minister generally have the same view in the appointment of a person and the opposition party leader stands isolated. The dissenting view of the opposition party leaders is bull-dozed. Therefore the inclusion of Chief Justice of India in the panel gives no room for adverse comments in the appointment. Even though the panel is headed by the Prime Minister, it is ultimately the writ of the Chief Justice that runs large because the Prime Minister is committed to appoint a person shortlisted and the opposition party leader is ‘always’ committed to oppose it. Favour for a particular person is offset by the disfavour by the opposition party leader. Finally, it is the decision of the Chief Justice that stays and results in the appointment. The reason for the resignation by Arun Goel has not been made known by him. Speculation is rife that he had differences of opinion with the Chief Election Commissioner and there is also rumour that he is about to join BJP. The opposition parties tried to make political capital out of the resignation of Goel. Since Goel has not aired his views in public on his resignation, the opposition parties are disappointed that they could not get the chance to slam the government. The appetite of the opposition parties is always to find issues to criticize the government and not to take their criticism on the issues where the government really goes wrong. Issues are required for criticisms and not criticisms are made on issues. Election commissioners have to act with responsibility whoever is appointed. They cannot do any favour to any particular party while announcing the results. In the case of orders to be passed on the disqualification of members, there may be interpretations and misinterpretations. When the aggrieved parties feel injustice, they have the access to approach the courts and get their grievances redressed. Election Commission in the past has faced many criticisms by the opposition parties. Even if the appointment of election commissioner is by the selection panel with Chief Justice as one of the members, the opposition parties find fault with the Election Commissioners on one pretext or the other. In any and every case, it is ultimately the Supreme Court that would have the last word.
K.V. Seetharamaiah