'Smacks of ulterior motives': Congress to Election Commission on notice to Mallikarjun Kharge

New Delhi: Insisting that its chief Mallikarjun Kharge did not violate the Model Code of Conduct as he clarified his “terrorist” remark on Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Congress on Thursday accused the Election Commission ignoring violations by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah while being “ever vigilant of slights” of Opposition.

Writing to the EC on the notice to Kharge, General Secretary (Communications) Jairam Ramesh said if the EC considers that there is no violation of law by Modi for his address to the nation and Shah for promising monetary benefits to women if BJP wins Bengal, then the Congress president cannot be considered to have violated law.

“We categorically state that there is no violation of the MCC or any other laws (by Kharge). And if the examples (Modi's and Shah's) cited...are not violative of any laws, then neither is the statement by the Congress President,” Ramesh said, while recalling that the EC has not acted on complaints filed by the Opposition against Modi and Shah in the past.

Filing a “summary” response, Ramesh objected to Kharge being given just 24 hours not sufficient time to respond and demanded one week’s time to submit a detailed reply. He also questioned the “casual manner” in which it was seeking explanations on the basis of ruling BJP's version, as he cited Kharge receiving two notices on the subject without withdrawing one.

Questioning the EC for serving two notices on the same issue, he said one of the notices even mentioned Trinamool Congress' Derek O'Brien as a complainant but the second notice, which was also uploaded on EC website, “strangely dropped” his name as the complainant. DH had reported about the EC’s faux pas on Wednesday.

“This indicates the casual and routine manner in which the Commission is issuing show cause notices merely on the basis of ruling party's complainants' versions and without any application of mind and by giving a time of mere 24 hours to file responses,” he said.

Ramesh cited Modi's contentious address to the nation and Shah's speech in Bengal promising financial benefits to women if the BJP comes to power, claiming both seemed to have escaped the EC's attention which seems "ever vigilant to slights" from the Opposition. He said both were "clear violations" of election law, which should have attracted the suo moto attention of the EC.

He recalled that Kharge himself has clarified his "terrorist" remarks and it is "already available in the public domain". He said by "relying only on a quote taken out of context" by the complainant and not looking at the entire comment, there does not seem to be any application of mind by the officials before hastily issuing this notice.

"It almost seems that an attempt is being made to deliberately overlook the clear and unequivocal explanation about the context in which the words were uttered, so as to find some way to take action against the Congress president. Unfortunately, it smacks of ulterior motives," he said.

On Modi’s address to the nation "after the failure" of the Government to pass the Constitutional (131st Amendment) Bill, Ramesh said it was an MCC violation besides Modi's "unsuccessful attempt to camouflage" that as a defeat for women's quota.

"This is amply evident from his numerous attacks on the Congress by name including where he accused the Congress of foeticide. No one watching was in any doubt, and indeed the PM himself was clear that this was a political attack during a time when multiple states were going to elections," he said.

On Shah's election promise to women, he claimed it was a "prime example of quid pro quo; you give me your vote, and I will give you XYZ benefit. This is not a policy pronouncement. It is a clear promise of exchange and thus hit by the language of Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951."

Ramesh also objected to the language adopted by the EC officials wherein they threatened to take action without making any further reference and despite the fact that they seem to have issued two different notices in a casual manner.

"We reiterate our position for an extension to file a detailed reply on law and a hearing. The ECI may consult its own records from 5 years ago to educate itself on the procedure concerned. Anything else is an empty formality and wholly violative of the rules of natural justice," it said. (ENDS)