By Inder Jit
(Released on 19 July 1983)
Parliament’s monsoon session, beginning next Monday, is appropriately getting full attention from both the Government and the Opposition. Leaders of the Opposition have met and continue to do so in a bid to function unitedly at least in the two Houses. Six leading parties have already decided to raise a discussion on what is described as the “politically motivated” supersession of Lt Gen S.K. Sinha by Lt Gen A.5. Vaidya as Army Chief. Other issues are also being listed to push the Government in the dock and safeguard democracy. Many, however, hope that the Opposition will also turn the spotlight on the Election Commission, which appears to favour the ruling Congress-party blatantly. Matters have deteriorated further since I proposed that Parliament should take a close look at its functioning. The poll body has since badly messed up its impartiality in the Jammu and Kashmir election, provoking the New Delhi Conclave of the Opposition to accuse it of “partisan functioning”. In addition, the Commission has again raised a question mark over its independence this time in regard to Delhi’s representation in the Rajya Sabha.
Take the second first. Delhi has three seats in the Rajya Sabha. Of these two are vacant – one since 1980 when Kr. Khurshid Alam Khan retired and the second since 1982 when Dr. Charanjit Channana completed his term. A poll to fill the seat vacated by Mr. Khan could not be held since Mrs. Gandhi arbitrarily dissolved the Metropolitan Council on return to power. Had a poll been held the seat would have gone to the BJP. A poll to the second seat could not be held in 1982 as there was no Metropolitan Council at the time. Election to the Metropolitan Council were eventually held early in February this year and the Council duly constituted on February 8. A poll for the two seats should have been held without delay — in the second half of February itself or in March. But the Commission continues to sit pretty and there is no sign of the poll even after five months. In sharp contrast, the Commission has ordered election to eight Rajya Sabha seats towards the end of this month. Seven are falling vacant on July 24 (six in Tamil Nadu and one in Pondicherry) and the eighth in U.P. for a seat vacated by Mr. B.N. Pande to enable Mr. V.P. Singh, Commerce Minister to get elected to Parliament.
The Election Commission has since badly messed up its impartiality in the Jammu and Kashmir election, provoking the New Delhi Conclave of the Opposition to accuse it of “partisan functioning”. In addition, the Commission has again raised a question mark over its independence this time in regard to Delhi’s representation in the Rajya Sabha.
The reason is not far to see. The Congress I would like to bag both the seats and the Chief Election Commissioner, Mr R.K. Trivedi, it seems, would like to be helpful. But the Congress-I can get only one seat if election for both the seats is held together because of the composition of the Metropolitan Council, which has 56 elected members. The Congress-I has 34 members, the Bharatiya Janata Party 19, the Lok Dal 2 and the Janata 1. The BJP can bag the second seat on its own strength; only 18.3 votes are required to win this seat. Understandably, the Congress-I is trying hard to see what it can do to win both the seats. Some of its leaders have proposed that since the seats fell vacant separately in 1980 and 1982 elections, too, should be held separately. The Congress-I is entitled to make any suggestion. But the Chief Election Commissioner is not expected to go by what suits the Congress-I best. He should have acted by now according to established practice and ordered the poll for both the seats together.
The Commission alone is empowered to fix poll dates. It should have impartially asked for more time to enable it to revise the electoral rolls in fairness to the people of Delhi. Instead, it chose to go by the pleasure of the powers that be.
The conduct of Mr Trivedi is both odd and surprising on two counts. On Friday last, he expressed unhappiness over the fact that a large number of seats continued to be vacant in the Legislative Councils of six States. Under the Constitution, one third of the members were required to be elected by the local bodies. But, he bemoaned, there had been no local bodies in these States for many years. Second, Mr. Trivedi continues to act in a partisan manner even after informed opinion exposed his partial actions in fixing the date for the Metropolitan Council poll. In January last, it may be recalled, he fixed the council poll on February 5 even when he knew that this was grossly unfair to the people of Delhi and, more especially, to those who had become eligible to vote on January 1. The Union Government was entitled to intimate to the Commission its “proposal” to end President’s rule on February 7. But Mr Trivedi was not obliged to go by its proposal. The Commission alone is empowered to fix poll dates. It should have impartially asked for more time to enable it to revise the electoral rolls in fairness to the people of Delhi. Instead, it chose to go by the pleasure of the powers that be.
Now the Jammu and Kashmir poll. The actions of the Poll Commission before, during and after the poll deserve attention. The State Government suggested that the poll be held on May 15. This, it pleaded, would get the poll and the connected tumult out of the way before the commencement of the tourist season, on which the State depended for 80 per cent of its income. But the poll body ignored the weighty argument for reasons best known to it and proposed June 15. The State Government implored the Commission again to fix May 15. Eventually, the Commission advanced the date to June 5 and in the bargain mucked up Kashmir’s tourist season. Subsequently, Mr Trivedi took another extraordinary step. He “sent” the Union Home Secretary. Mr T.N. Chaturvedi, to Kashmir to assess the law and order situation because of complaints by the Congress-I and certain Press reports. The assessment of the State Government was brazenly ignored, — an assessment confirmed by Mr Chaturvedi. In sharp contrast, Mr Trivedi went ahead with the Assam poll on the word of the State Government, ignoring facts which even the blind could see.
Four days after the poll, the Secretary of the Commission, Dr. R.P. Bhalla, “complained” that the State Government had not deployed the CRP and BSF men on election duty though 32 battalions of the two forces had been requisitioned for the purpose. Yet, there was not a word about it earlier. In fact, Dr Bhalla told Mr H.N. Bahuguna in a letter dated June 3 that “the commission have so far received the full cooperation of the State Government”. Clearly, the Commission seemed by that stage more interested in joining the Congress-I’s orchestrated attack on Dr. Farooq Abdullah and his Government. Nothing prevented the Commission from ensuring proper deployment under its powers. In the historic Lok Sabha by-election from Chikamagalur in 1978, Mr Shakdher got the state Government to withdraw some of the police in the constituency when it was alleged that excessive force was likely to vitiate the poll. Thereafter, he also ordered the induction of CRP and BSF units when the Opposition represented that the State police was “biased” in favour of Mrs Gandhi. Significantly, Mr Shakdher then ruled that the police force in a constituency should be adequate to ensure a fair poll — not too much, nor too little.
Much of the trouble that erupted in Kashmir during the poll and its sticky aftermath could have been avoided if only the Chief Election Commissioner had acted competently — and taken a leaf out of the book of his predecessor, Mr. Shakdher. Instead, he left deployment of the CRP and BSF units to the Union Home Secretary, ignoring two things. First, Mr Chaturvedi could only advise broadly during a brief visit. Second, he had no power to secure compliance of his “advice”. (New Delhi, I learn, decided to send it Chaturvedi on its own. But Mr. Trivedi gladly agreed to own Mr. Chaturvedi as his own nomine!) Mr Shakdher, it may be recalled, handled the election to the State Assembly in 1977 and gave the State its first-ever truly free and fair poll. Mr Shakdher, who had taken up the assignment barely a fortnight earlier, visited Srinagar, Jammu and Ladakh and supervised the poll personally at the request of the then Prime Minister, Mr. Morarji Desai, and the Governor, Mr. L.K. Jha, who then headed the state administration under President’s rule. Mr Desai told him clearly: “I want you to give the people a free and fair poll. I don’t want any favour to the Janata — or any other party.”
The Congress-I is entitled to make any suggestion. But the Chief Election Commissioner is not expected to go by what suits the Congress-I best. He should have acted by now according to established practice and ordered the poll for both the seats together.
Following his arrival in Srinagar, Mr Shakdher reviewed the overall situation and took three steps to ensure a free and fair poll and restore confidence in the administration. First, he made it absolutely clear to all party leaders that he would annul the election and order afresh poll without the slightest hesitation in case he found that there was any wholesale garbar or that the poll was not free and fair. Second, he asked the Governor to release immediately some 900 political workers who were under preventive detention as there were no specific charges against them; most of them belonged to the National Conference. Third, he inducted units of the CRP and BSF into the State and had them posted in sensitive areas, replacing the local police. (“I was anxious to make sure,” he told me two years ago, that no one was prevented from exercising his franchise.”) In addition, he put the CRP and BSF units on patrolling duty on the days of the poll. All this meant a lot of hard work. But the effort was well rewarded as all party leaders later acknowledged the poll to have been truly free and fair.
The Considerable excitement was caused by the decision of the Returning Officer of the Doda Assembly constituency to announce the result in alleged “defiance” of the Commissions “directive”. Yet what has come to pass in Doda has an interesting parallel in the by-election of Rajasthan’s Congress-I Chief Minister, Mr Jagannath Pahadia, to the State Assembly from Bharatpur in 1980. Mr Raj Bahadur, Congress-S, frantically rang up Mr Shakdhar and complained against “massive rigging” and other corrupt practices in the poll. Mr Shakdher promptly responded and a telex message was sent to Jaipur by 11.30 am. Chief Electoral Officer was asked to direct the Returning Officer at Bharatpur to withhold the result — and to submit it first to the Commission. A wireless message was sent to the Returning Officer at about 1pm.The Returning Officer nevertheless declared Mr Pahadia elected at 3.15 pm. Later, he claimed that the Commission’s order reached him only at 3.30 pm. Mr Shakdher probed the matter but could do little. Once a Returning Officer declares the result — bona fide – the Commission’s jurisdiction ends. The matter then moves into the jurisdiction of the Court.
Much of the trouble that erupted in Kashmir during the poll and its sticky aftermath could have been avoided if only the Chief Election Commissioner had acted competently — and taken a leaf out of the book of his predecessor.
Some Opposition leaders ask: what can be done? The answer lies in informing the country adequately through meaningful debates and other exercises in Parliament — and in building up strong public opinion in defence of democracy. Both the scandal of Delhi’s representation in the Rajya Sabha and of the Commission’s partisan and incompetent handling of the Jammu and Kashmir poll need to be raised. This can be done in the Lok Sabha through several devices — as an adjournment motion, an ordinary motion under rule 184, a no-day-yet-named-motion under rule 189 or a short notice discussion under rule 193. (On December 23, 1977, the speaker, Mr K.S. Hegde, admitted an adjournment motion by the Congress-I member, Mr Vyalar Ravi, presently Home Minister in Kerala on two by-elections in U.P. and Bihar.) The crucial thing for MPs to remember is to avoid the words Election Commission in their formulation, a mention of which would automatically invite rejection. True, it is not easy to raise discussions in Parliament. But success comes to those who persevere and persist. Fortunately, the cause in the present case is sound. An independent Poll Commission is basic to the health of our democracy. — INFA