<p>There was a serious breach of propriety when a central ministry told the Election Commission last month to attend a meeting at the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and when members of the Commission attended the meeting, though it was called an “informal interaction”. An official of the Law Ministry wrote to the EC that the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister PK Mishra “expects’’ the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) to be present during a discussion. The letter sounded like a summons from the government to the EC, and CEC Sushil Chandra expressed his displeasure over its tone and stayed away from the main meeting but chose to join, along with his two fellow Election Commissioners, the subsequent interaction with Mishra. The letter and the EC’s response to it raise uncomfortable questions that have a bearing on the status of the Commission and its relationship with the government. The Law Ministry’s subsequent explanation has not answered the questions satisfactorily. </p>.<p>The Election Commission is a constitutional body that has the highest degree of autonomy in a democratic system and should function independently of the government, political parties and other centres of power. Since its mandate is to hold free and fair elections, it should function in a free and fair manner, and should be seen to be functioning so. No official of the government can call the EC for a meeting and the Election Commissioners do not go to the government to explain anything. It is the officials of the Commission who interact with the government on various matters. The letter read like a summons, not even a request or an invitation. The standing of the CEC in the warrant of precedence is ninth while the position of the official he was to meet is 23rd. But this is not just a matter of breach of protocol. </p>.<p>The letter seemed to treat the EC as a subordinate body, undermining its independence and authority. It must be seen as part of the attempts by the government to weaken institutions that are essential for the functioning of democracy. The Election Commission has a special role and status on account of its mandate, and it is important that its status is upheld and it is accorded the respect that it deserves. In recent years, the Commission has faced criticism for its acts of commission and omission that seemed to favour the government or the ruling party. There have been controversies about the fixing of election schedules, the announcement of dates, decisions on model code of conduct and other matters. The government’s demand for a meeting and the interaction the EC had with the PMO was inappropriate in itself, and more so in the run-up to Assembly elections in some important states.</p>
<p>There was a serious breach of propriety when a central ministry told the Election Commission last month to attend a meeting at the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and when members of the Commission attended the meeting, though it was called an “informal interaction”. An official of the Law Ministry wrote to the EC that the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister PK Mishra “expects’’ the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) to be present during a discussion. The letter sounded like a summons from the government to the EC, and CEC Sushil Chandra expressed his displeasure over its tone and stayed away from the main meeting but chose to join, along with his two fellow Election Commissioners, the subsequent interaction with Mishra. The letter and the EC’s response to it raise uncomfortable questions that have a bearing on the status of the Commission and its relationship with the government. The Law Ministry’s subsequent explanation has not answered the questions satisfactorily. </p>.<p>The Election Commission is a constitutional body that has the highest degree of autonomy in a democratic system and should function independently of the government, political parties and other centres of power. Since its mandate is to hold free and fair elections, it should function in a free and fair manner, and should be seen to be functioning so. No official of the government can call the EC for a meeting and the Election Commissioners do not go to the government to explain anything. It is the officials of the Commission who interact with the government on various matters. The letter read like a summons, not even a request or an invitation. The standing of the CEC in the warrant of precedence is ninth while the position of the official he was to meet is 23rd. But this is not just a matter of breach of protocol. </p>.<p>The letter seemed to treat the EC as a subordinate body, undermining its independence and authority. It must be seen as part of the attempts by the government to weaken institutions that are essential for the functioning of democracy. The Election Commission has a special role and status on account of its mandate, and it is important that its status is upheld and it is accorded the respect that it deserves. In recent years, the Commission has faced criticism for its acts of commission and omission that seemed to favour the government or the ruling party. There have been controversies about the fixing of election schedules, the announcement of dates, decisions on model code of conduct and other matters. The government’s demand for a meeting and the interaction the EC had with the PMO was inappropriate in itself, and more so in the run-up to Assembly elections in some important states.</p>
