The ECI’s Ineffectiveness: The Watchdog on a Leash
Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao
The Hans India
(16-06-2025)
In a June 7, 2025
article, Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha and Senior Congress leader Rahul
Gandhi made a serious allegation of ‘Industrial-Scale Rigging’ in the
2024 Maharashtra Assembly Elections. His claims were strongly rebutted by the
Election Commission of India (ECI) dismissing as ‘completely absurd’ and aimed
at defaming the Commission. In retaliation, Rahul Gandhi strongly objected to
this rebuttal that came in the form of an unsigned note, raising questions
about the transparency and accountability of the institution. Meanwhile,
Congress MP Jairam Ramesh cautioned ECI to be ‘Independent and Transparent’
and avoid to speak through BJP president Nadda. The ECI has long been regarded as one of India’s ‘Most Respected
Constitutional Bodies’ entrusted with the vital task of ensuring conduct of
free and fair elections to Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, State Legislative
Assemblies, State Legislative Councils across the country, besides elections to
the offices of the President and Vice President.
Rahul Gandhi’s sharp criticism, in a way, reflects a
broader sentiment that the ECI may no longer be functioning as the neutral,
fearless guardian of democracy. Comprehension of ECI, and Political Parties, is
an interesting study. CEC who heads the ECI and ECs can be removed only through
a parliamentary impeachment. From ‘Day One’ when the Constitution was adopted
on November 26, 1949, ECI and CEC have been maintaining fairly balanced
approach, barring occasional biases for explicable and inexplicable reasons,
but by and large it was a neutral approach.
CEC was a ‘Single
Member Institution’ from March 21, 1950 to September 30, 1993. However, Since
October 1, 1993 it became a three-member body. Every
state and union territory has a Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) representing the ECI.
The CEC announces the schedule of elections after considering various factors. Despite
all this well knitted structure, frequent allegations on ECI and indirectly on
CEC, necessitates a study of Electoral System that includes political parties’
registration.
In most electoral systems, political parties are
required to register before they can field candidates and contest in
elections. Registering usually demands obligations that parties must
meet. In order to register as a party, most electoral systems have
established minimum eligibility requirements, usually based on having a certain
number of registered voters as members.
Registration procedures
also have restrictions on the party names. Categorizing parties either when
they register or later, such as National, Regional etc. is also in vogue.
The registration
process is governed by ECI, which begins with submission of an application on
the party letterhead, enclosing required fee remittance details, bye-laws
including formal constitution with a provision regarding periodical
organizational elections at different levels with a mention of term of office,
declaration of office bearers, minimum number of members, and affidavits
committing to secularism and democracy. But this drama is more a procedural one,
than substantive.
In effect, ECI itself
remarkably limited its own powers giving an impression that they are largely
procedural, but not punitive. This contradiction, apparently strong in
electoral conduct, weak in party ethics, has created a wide chasm between legal
norms and ground realities. The reason is simple: The ethical part in some form
or other to be adhered by parties is conspicuously absent, and over a time ECI
conducting elections and political parties’ changing interpretation on ECI role
has become a subject of unequivocal controversy, and ambiguous refutes by ECI.
Furthermore, ECI rarely
dares to touch any political party on issues of dishonest promises and
observations, except sticking to the rule book regarding Model Code, Expenses,
Affidavits, Offensive or Hate Speeches etc. that too during the election
process. ECI literally sleeps throughout the period between election and
election and does not bother at all as to what any political party does
particularly with reference to promises galore, whether they were implemented
or not.
Beyond registration and
symbol allocation, ECI’s authority is nominal. It does not possess field
machinery or legal mandate to investigate practices that are not in conformity,
unless a formal complaint backed by evidence is made. ECI never intervenes on defections
and intra-party coups, MLAs defect en masse form breakaway factions, and
destabilize governments, unless there is a formal complaint. Ideological
betrayals or opportunistic splits are not in its purview.
The visible unethical
practice of eleventh-hour distribution of B-forms, including to overnight
defectors, just before nomination submission on the last day, or at times
withdrawals deadline, is literally a tool of coercion and favor, especially practiced
by hereditary or centralized leaderships. ECI simply mandates format, it cannot
question rationale behind deciding candidature. Internal sabotage, backroom
deals, or caste calculations, remain opaque and unchallengeable processes in
real time.
In essence, the ECI’s ‘Ineffectiveness
is Akin to a Watchdog on a Leash’ in party ethics. It ensures elections are
conducted on time, and that certain procedural norms are followed. But it
cannot legally intervene in how parties are created, funded, split, or
manipulated unless the matter is framed as a technical dispute. The larger rot,
in ideology, internal democracy, leadership monopoly, forced memberships, and
unregulated funding, lies outside its control. Whether the ‘Industrial-Scale
Rigging’ as alleged by Rahul to be attributed to ECI or Government remains a
million-dolor question.
Despite this
inefficiency of ECI, in the vast and often turbulent arena of political
parties, there have been shining examples of best practices that elevated
democratic values, next practices that signaled evolving norms, and individuals
who led parties not just to electoral success but to moral and institutional
maturity. These instances provide blueprints for what political leadership can
and should be. It is beyond doubt that, in the often-unpredictable theatre of Indian
democracy, political parties serve as principal vehicles of public
representation, policy formulation, and power negotiation.
ECI in January 2017
published a book, ‘Unfolding Indian Elections-Journey of the living
democracy’ that documented interesting facts on Indian Elections. Post Independence
and with Universal Adult Suffrage, first general elections were held for Lok
Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies simultaneously during 1951-52. Every
citizen above 21 years (18, since 2014 elections) of age was eligible to vote. The
enormous task to enroll every adult citizen was fairly a grand success.
Spending money or
buying votes in the first general elections, the whole process of which took
place from September 10, 1951 to June 4, 1952, was an anathema. Global
community witnessed these elections with great interest. World had taken notice
of subsequent elections also in India and journalists, politicians and
observers from numerous countries descended upon India to see its novel
experiment of adult suffrage.
First CEO Sukumar Sen
oversaw the elections. Indelible ink for application on voter’s fingers was
developed by Indian Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. Metal and wooden
boxes were used to receive ballots. Each candidate was assigned one box then. Strangely
some voters regarded ballot boxes as objects of worship and dropped flowers and
some dropped papers writing something.
From Sukumar to present
CEO Gyanesh Kumar it has been a long and successful journey. However, Rahul
Gandhi’s allegation of ‘Industrial-Scale Rigging’ by this highly reputed
constitutional body, propelled ECI into a dilemma and major concern of
sustenance of its unbiased standing in future. Let us hope that, ECI which seldom
established its powers earlier, and no hope of exhibiting in future, despite
parties and candidates fail to observe its essential directives, such as
election expenditure and malpractices, transforms effective.
