Anil Anand
The phrase “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion” in the literal sense means that a famous or prominent person or organisation must avoid attracting negative attention or scrutiny. Adherence to this phrase is directly related to a strong reflection of impartial credentials. This phrase is often hurled at each other by the political rivals to score a brownie point hardly realising the seriousness of the feeling behind this saying.
The issue becomes much more serious if while quoting this phrase the direct reference is to Election Commission of India whose impartial credentials and capacity to hold free and fair elections in the largest democracy of the world are universally acknowledged. Controversies and ECI are not unknown to each other and to some extent this situation is unavoidable as after all the “poll-referee” deals with the political parties and leaders who could go to any extent to justify their victory and lambast anyone including the poll panel for defeat.
But the situation takes an awkward turn when the ECI’s decision making comes under public scrutiny, not that it should not be open to scrutiny, and more so when viewed or assessed in the light of set precedents and practices. This is not to say that the panel has no power to take decisions in its wisdom. Certainly the Chief Election Commission and the two Election Commissioners are well within their powers to do so but sometimes, as the situations warrant, they should also act with greater prudence particularly when it involves issues which become personal cum official for them. At times holding on to conventions and traditions could act as a shield to deflect suspicions than moving away from the same and be doubted by the stakeholders.
The ECI’s decision to segregate the polling schedules for Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh Assembly elections, going against the conventions, has created an avoidable controversy and dragged the CEC A K Joti into the realm of Caesar’s wife syndrome. Immediately, the Election Commission’s decision for postponing to a later date announcing schedule for Gujarat elections raised heckles of the BJP’s, ruling both at the Centre and in the state, political rivals particularly the strongest challenger Congress. The backdrop of Mr Joti being a 1975-batch Gujarat cadre IAS officer who was also the state chief secretary before moving to Delhi to take up the high constitutional office in Nirvachan Sadan, led the rivals to allege favouritism in delaying the poll dates to give more time to the ruling party to announce to shell out more poll-eve sops till the last moment. Mr Joti has vehemently denied and justified the panel’s decision of delayed poll dates on the plea that the State Government needed some more time to complete flood relief measures in some districts.
So, it resulted in Caesar and the wife both finding them covered by the same cloud of suspicion. Why should not the Caesar more than his wife be above suspicion? This reversal of the proverbial saying has become a serious debating point as regards the role of Mr Joti after particularly after reports emerged about his holding on to an official accommodation, perceived to be a favour, in Ahmadabad and at the same time enjoying a similar facility while holding a high-Constitutional post in Delhi. It was alleged that the retention of house came as a favour to be him by the state government and that the postponement of poll schedule seen as a repay back time.
The basis of the housing controversy lies in the court documents concerning a case filed by a senior police officer before the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) Guwahati Bench. The police officer had furnished documents showing that Joti had not vacated an official bungalow allotted to him by Gujarat Government in Ahmadabad while he was serving there till sometime in 2016 which was almost a year after he had taken charge of a Constitutional post in Delhi that needed complete independence from political parties or Centre and the State Governments.
So the controversy generated by EC’s October 12, 2017 decision to break away from the practice and defer announcement of Gujarat Assembly election dates with a view to delay the imposition of Model Code of Conduct, led to the political parties using this ammunition ( CAT case documents) against Joti. The more worrisome development has been that not only the parties but at least half a dozen former Chief Election Commissioners have publically criticised this deferment which they felt has brought bad name to the poll panel.
In this backdrop and with Joti holding on to the Gujarat Government allotted accommodation following the state acceding to his request for a special consideration to retain the same, doubts have been raised about his ability to take an impartial view. The direct fallout has been the fingers being raised at the institution of Election Commission known for its independence and capacity to create level playing field for elections.
Will such a situation erode the Election Commission’s stature as a fiercely independent poll conducting body hailed world-over and which has helped many countries in the art of conducting free and fair elections? As such directly it will have no effect whatsoever as decision making at the Nirvachan Sadan apart where such aberrations take place occasionally, the entire poll conducting process is a multi-tier exercise involving lakhs of Government personnel of different categories.
Yet another question arises whether the decision to postpone Gujarat poll schedule under the circumstances with Joti’s background as an officer of the Gujarat cadre having held many important posts in the state, could have a psychological impact on the state officers on poll duty to act in a particular way? The episode has definitely created a buzz and Joti’s role continues to be under the scanner but it would be too much to think in terms of greater impact of poll postponement decision on the decision making and impartial attitude of the officers overseeing elections in the state.
The ECI has over the years, particularly after heady days of being presided over by the indomitable T N Seshan, has acquired a worldwide reputation of being an epitome of public trust. This fact is also borne out by study conducted under a comprehensive 3-year long State of Democracy in South Asia project. The study had found that the ECI was second only to the army among the state institutions when measured on the barometer of public trust. The trust started becoming stronger after the then CEC RVS Peri Sastri in 1987 reversed the decision and instead of the Government directing the top poll body on when to hold the elections, it started becoming privilege of the ECI.
The trust and authority of the ECI was further established when Seshan became the CEC. There is no denying the fact that strong decision making by him which at times was also seen as bordering idiosyncrasies, as at least two of his fellow Election Commissioners narrated to this writer later, strengthened this public trust factor. Of course in the process the political class was totally rattled as none of their tantrums to have their way with the ECI worked. So it was a clear fight between creating public trust over anything else and the trust factor reigned supreme.
Final victor in terms of impartial mechanism and public trust was the ECI. The latest episode has led to erosion of, at least in public debate, public trust in the poll body to some extent. Why create a situation where even an iota of doubt is raised about impartiality of the Election Commission? This is the question under current debate.
Even if one starts counting from the Peri Sastry days, however the ECI truly found its feet during the subsequent Seshan era, one can say that three decades is not a long period in the life of such a Constitutional body tasked with keeping the spirit of democracy, holding of free and fair elections, pure and alive. The ECI is still growing and a work in progress.
This is not the first time that it turned wobbly. It has stumbled many times in the past as well but the silver-lining is that every time faced with such situations it has emerged stronger, and not letting the public trust down beyond a limit.
Will it emerge stronger after the current row? Only time will tell.
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Follow our WhatsApp channel