Election Commission’s advisory to Rahul: Is it impartial?
His remarks had invited immediate action from the ECI, and he was issued a show cause notice for calling the Prime Minister a pickpocket and a Panauti
image for illustrative purpose
One more question needs an answer from the ECI and the judiciary. Is it fair on their part to say that comments against the Prime Minister should be decent? Is he different from others as far as the law is concerned? Do other politicians and citizens not deserve respect? We have seen how senior BJP leaders, including Prime Minister Modi, make offensive remarks against Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi
The Election Commission of India has issued an advisory to Rahul Gandhi to be more cautious in his utterances. The Commission has acted at the direction of the Delhi High Court. Both the ECI and the HC have disapproved of Rahul’s remarks on Prime Minister Narendra Modi at an election rally in Rajasthan. His remarks had invited immediate action from the ECI, and he was issued a show cause notice for calling the Prime Minister a ‘pickpocket’ and a ‘Panauti.’ The action was taken based on a complaint by the BJP. His remarks were found to violate the Model Code of Conduct. When the matter was considered by the Delhi High Court, it also found the remarks to be ‘not in good taste.’ Was it wrong on the part of the Commission to issue a show cause? Was the directive of the High Court necessary? Nothing is wrong on the part of both the ECI and the HC. They should act on such complaints, and they are duty-bound to protect the sanctity of the elections by asking political parties and their leaders to display high standards of public conduct during elections. However, it becomes problematic when the ECI or the judiciary becomes selective in identifying the culprit.
In Rahul Gandhi's and his family's case, every institution has been found to be overly enthusiastic. In this case, Rahul was picked up selectively amidst the highly charged atmosphere of assembly elections in three States: Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh. His speech at an election rally in the Barmer district of Rajasthan was selected for scrutiny following a complaint by the BJP. Rahul has likened the Prime Minister to a pickpocket and accused him of diverting people’s attention so that crony capitalists could steal the public money. He has been blaming the Prime Minister for the loot of the State exchequer. In his Barmer speech, he mentioned how the Modi government waived Rs 14,00,000 crore of corporate loans during its nine-year rule. The ECI issued a show cause under various sections of the Model Code of Conduct. It included the provision that prohibits criticism based on unverified facts. Did the ECI verify the allegation? It just accepted the allegation by the BJP. The Prime Minister has been accusing all previous governments, including Jawaharlal Nehru, of doing nothing. He also says that all the governments were corrupt. Could the ECI issue any notice for these unsubstantiated remarks? Modi’s dismissal of all the previous governments is ridiculous. The contempt shown by him towards great personalities is not only in bad taste but also motivated by selfish political gains. He ignores that his utterances are setting an unacceptable political tradition. In the same elections, he asked the people to vote to hang the opposition. Was it not a violation of the Constitution?
Only during the above-mentioned elections did the Congress lodge complaints against both Home Minister Amit Shah and Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma for making communal speeches. Shah had accused then-Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel of killing a person who died in a riot. Sarma had said that one Akbar (the Congress candidate) would bring 100 Akbar, and the land of Mother Kausalya would be defiled.
The ECI issued notice to the Assam Chief Minister but ignored the complaints against the Union Home Minister.
The ECI issues notices to both Priyanka Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi in the assembly elections of three States: Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Madhya Pradesh. However, the ECI did not act on most of the complaints against the BJP.
One more question needs an answer from the ECI and the judiciary. Is it fair on their part to say that comments against the Prime Minister should be decent? Is he different from others as far as the law is concerned? Do other politicians and citizens not deserve respect? We have seen how senior BJP leaders, including Prime Minister Modi, make offensive remarks against Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. The trend of discouraging people from making comments against the ruling people is not a welcome one. It leads to authoritarianism.
The Election Commission of India has issued an advisory to political parties to tell them those indirect violations using “a satire to raise unverified allegations”.
The ECI has indicated that it will adopt a zero-tolerance policy towards violations of the Model Code of Conduct during campaigns.
“ While acknowledging the need to keep a balance between the freedom of expression and level playing field, the advisory noted that the Commission has been following a self-restrained approach since the previous few rounds of elections, presuming that its notice would serve as a moral censure to the candidate or star campaigner. Orders issued by the Commission are carefully crafted to ensure minimal disruption to campaigning activities than outright prohibitions,” says the advisory.
“However, the objective to check on the level of discourse, using MCC notices in a judicious way, akin to a moral censure, may not be misunderstood and repeated in the next election cycle. Additionally, advisory has acknowledged the evolving landscape of information technology and social media platforms has blurred the lines between pre-MCC and the 48-hour silence period, leading to persistent circulation of content across multiple phases of campaigning and even unrelated elections.,” it explains. Will the ECI adopt a no-tolerance approach for all political parties? Recent records hardly give any hope. The advisory issued to Rahul Gandhi only confirms the doubt.
How blatantly public money is being used for the election campaign could be seen in the spree of inauguration and foundation stone-laying ceremonies. The Prime Minister uses all these occasions for election campaigning. He is spending a huge amount of public money to advertise ‘Modi’s Guarantee”. Will the Election Commission or the judiciary be able to stop him?
(The author is a senior journalist. He has experience of working with leading newspapers and electronic media including Deccan Herald, Sunday Guardian, Navbharat Times and Dainik Bhaskar. He writes on politics, society, environment and economy)
