Blurring lines: Politics in the PM’s address

Using a national platform to target the Opposition prioritises political gain over propriety in office

Prime Minister Narendra Modi used a national stage, available to him on account of his office, to make a political pitch against the Opposition, a day after the defeat of the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, in the Lok Sabha.

In his address to the nation on Saturday, Modi attacked the Opposition parties, especially the Congress, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), and the Trinamool Congress, in strong language for what he called scuttling the idea of women’s reservation.

That the address was made days ahead of the Assembly elections in Tamil Nadu and West Bengal could constitute a violation of the model code of conduct. Prime Ministers address the nation in times of national emergencies or to draw the people’s attention to matters of national consequence. The Bill’s defeat in Parliament was not such an occasion, and the address amounted to a misuse of office.

The code of conduct intended for the party in power clearly states that “the misuse of official mass media during the election period for partisan coverage of political news and publicity regarding achievements with a view to furthering the prospects of the party in power shall be scrupulously avoided”.

An address made on Doordarshan, the State broadcaster, criticising the Opposition and calling upon the people to punish the parties may fall under the purview of this provision. The Prime Minister’s action has been compared to former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s violation of the model code during the 1975 Rae Bareli election.

The Opposition parties have written to the Election Commission of India (ECI) about the alleged violation of the code. But if the Commission’s recent record is indicative, action on the complaint is doubtful.

The address stood out for its stridency and the vileness of the attack. The Prime Minister used terminology with emotional and religious overtones, such as bhrun hatya (foeticide) and paap (sin), to describe the Opposition’s position on the Bill. This is unfair because the government was equally responsible for the collapse of the Bill, which was brought forward without any serious consultations with the major Opposition parties.

The government knew that the Bill would fail in the House. That it still went ahead with the move exposes its electoral motives. The Prime Minister’s address was an exercise in furthering these objectives. Its message and tone revealed that political considerations, not an honest commitment to the women’s reservation cause, drove the haste in introducing the Bill.