The Election Commission-Bharatiya Janata Party showdown on the refusal of permission for a rally by its prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi in Varanasi is neither the first of its kind nor is it likely to be the last.
It is inherent in the very nature of the institution that every single action of the commission goes either in favour or against a party or candidate, thus making it someone’s target.
The commission has come under attack countless times, particularly after T.N. Seshan entered the portals of Nirvachan Sadan in December 1990 and for the first time put the fear of regulations among the political class.
In the last 23-odd years, virtually every Union and State government, political parties, innumerable number of ministers and candidates have challenged the legal, administrative and moral authority of the commission as the arbitrator on conduct of elections.
Besides the Union government, several State governments, political parties and candidates have knocked on the doors of the Supreme Court questioning its powers. However, rarely has the apex court ruled against the commission.
In one judgement, the Supreme Court described Article 324 of the Constitution, which defines the jurisdiction of the commission, as a “reservoir of power” where the law is silent.The then Congress government led by P.V. Narasimha Rao was so shaken by the actions of Mr. Seshan that it chose to revert to the old system by making the commission a multi-member body. Two more Commissioners were appointed in an obvious attempt to neutralise Mr. Seshan. Mr. Seshan contested this in the Supreme Court, but lost the case.
During the tenure of Mr. Seshan, the Union government had challenged in the Supreme Court the powers of the commission to take disciplinary action against officers deputed during the election process. The apex court gave a verdict in favour of the poll panel.
Since the current election process started on March 5, the chief ministers of Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, Ms Jayalalithaa and Ms Mamata Banerjee, tried in vain to defy the authority of the commission on the powers related to transfer of officials and ceiling on poll expenditure.
Ms. Banerjee accused the poll panel of issuing orders at the behest of the Congress. She went to the extent of openly declaring that the phasing of elections in the State by the EC was aimed at facilitating rigging to ensuring the victory of Congress candidates.
Ms. Jayalalithaa at an election rally had threatened to challenge the Election Commission guidelines on campaign expenditure limits.
External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid criticised the BJP on Thursday for questioning the EC authority on the rally ban, conveniently forgetting that in 2012 the EC, in an unprecedented action, had sought the “immediate and decisive” intervention of President Pratibha Patil after it charged the then Law Minister Salman Khurshid with “improper and unlawful” defiance of its orders under which he was censured for promising sub-quota for minorities. Subsequently, the EC accepted regrets by the Minister for his conduct.
In a strongly-worded communication to Ms. Patil, the commission had said Mr. Khurshid's action could “vitiate free and fair polls” in Uttar Pradesh and that the EC was “perturbed because the undermining of its Constitutionally-mandated duties had come from the Law Minister who has direct responsibility to uphold and strengthen the ECI rather than to denigrate it”.
The commission took the unprecedented decision to complain against a Union Minister to the President after Mr. Khurshid told an election rally in U.P. earlier in the day that he would continue to pursue the line on 9 per cent sub-quota for minorities “even if they (EC) hang me.”
