Why is it in the News?

The Election Commission (EC) is extremely reasonable in matters that affect public welfare and the Government, and investigative agencies must respect that.

Context:

• Recent concerns raised by two former heads of the poll panel have shed light on the actions of tax agencies during election periods.
• In a democracy, free and fair elections are fundamental, safeguarding citizens' rights to freely choose their representatives without external pressure.
• Given the significance of preserving the integrity of the electoral process, it is crucial to scrutinize actions that could potentially disrupt this process.
• Such actions include the issuance of tax demands or IT notices to political parties, prompting a closer examination of precedents where the Election Commission intervened to maintain a fair and balanced electoral environment.

Impact of IT Notices on Opposition During Election Period:

• Disruption of Level Playing Field (LPF) Through Financial Interference: The issuance of IT notices by tax agencies during election campaigns may be interpreted as efforts to undermine the democratic process by targeting specific political entities.
  • Freezing accounts, debiting funds, or issuing notices during this crucial period can significantly disrupt the financial resources and operational capacities of certain parties, thereby skewing the electoral landscape in favor of others.
  • Such interference compromises the core principles of democracy and electoral fairness, eroding public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process.
• Influence on Voter Perception: The timing of these actions raises concerns about their potential impact on voter perceptions and election outcomes.
  • Voters may perceive such actions as politically motivated or aimed at influencing the electoral results, casting doubts on the fairness and impartiality of the electoral process.
  • Preserving the principles of neutrality, transparency, and fairness is vital in upholding democratic ideals and ensuring elections truly reflect the will of the people.
• Operational Hurdles: Raids and enforcement activities by tax agencies pose significant operational challenges for political parties, diverting their focus and resources away from election campaigning.
  • Parties may find themselves compelled to address legal matters, respond to inquiries, and navigate tax regulations complexities, detracting from their ability to engage with voters and advocate their platforms effectively.
• Undermining Confidence in the Electoral Process: The perception that tax agencies target specific parties or candidates during elections can undermine public trust in the fairness and impartiality of the electoral process.
  • Such actions may be viewed as politically driven attempts to sway election outcomes, fostering skepticism about the legitimacy of the electoral process and the credibility of election results.
• Impact on Democratic Participation: Financial and operational challenges resulting from enforcement actions can discourage democratic engagement and participation among voters.
  • Perceived unfairness or bias in the electoral process may lead citizens to disengage from the democratic process, fostering disillusionment and apathy toward democratic participation.

Why Actions Against CMs, Congress Can Wait?

• Traditionally, the Election Commission (EC) has adhered to the principle of postponing any actions that can be deferred until after the conclusion of elections.
• It prompts a crucial question: would there be any significant harm in postponing these actions?
• In the current scenarios involving the arrest of two chief ministers and the issuance of IT notices, including the freezing of accounts of an opposition party, delaying these actions until after the elections would likely result in no irreparable harm.
• Conversely, proceeding with these actions during the election period could inflict irreparable damage on the two affected parties by severely hampering their electoral campaigns, both physically and financially.

Actions Taken by the Elections Commission (EC) Against Governments and Central Agencies to Preserve Level Playing Field (LPF):

• Addressing Bias or Partiality: The EC has actively intervened to uphold fair and impartial elections, particularly in cases where central agencies faced allegations of bias or partiality.
  • During the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, the EC urged the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to maintain impartiality following complaints from opposition parties about the perceived misuse of central agencies by the ruling party.
• Emphasizing Neutrality and Impartiality: The EC consistently underscores the principles of neutrality, impartiality, and non-discrimination in all enforcement actions during election periods.
  • Its commitment to maintaining the integrity of the electoral process is evident through its insistence on fair treatment for all parties involved.
• Balancing Public Welfare with Electoral Neutrality: While ensuring fairness, the EC also demonstrates pragmatism in matters affecting public welfare.
  • For instance, during state elections, it permitted the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to announce a national reduction in petrol prices, deeming it beneficial to the wider public interest.
  • However, proposals such as increases in minimum support prices of certain foodgrains, perceived as potentially influencing voters, are disallowed during election periods to maintain electoral neutrality.
• Promoting Transparency in the Electoral Environment: The EC's interventions aim to curtail the misuse of office by political leaders and ministers, fostering a transparent and equitable electoral environment.
  • The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) serves as a pivotal instrument in this endeavor, imposing restrictions on ruling parties to prevent undue advantages.
• Providing Guidance to Political Entities: While primarily focusing on individuals, the EC also advises political parties to ensure adherence to the code of conduct.
  • For example, during overlapping budget sessions and election periods, state governments are encouraged to adopt a "vote on account" approach to avoid contravening the MCC with new schemes or projects.
• EC's Influence in Goa By-Election, 2012: An illustrative instance of the EC's influence is its intervention in a by-election in Goa in 2012, where the Chief Minister intended to induct a probable candidate into the Council of Ministers before the election.
  • Despite possessing constitutional authority, the Chief Minister deferred the induction upon the EC's advice, acknowledging the moral authority of the Model Code of Conduct.
• This exemplifies the delicate balance between various authorities in a parliamentary democracy, reinforcing India's electoral processes as models of integrity and fairness globally.

Conclusion

The Election Commission's proactive engagement with central agencies, advocating for the postponement of actions such as raids, freezing of accounts, and issuance of tax demands until after elections, serves as a cornerstone in upholding the principles of free and fair elections.

By intervening in such matters, the Election Commission reinforces its commitment to ensuring an impartial electoral process, reassuring voters of the integrity and fairness of elections.

Ultimately, safeguarding the integrity of elections is paramount to preserving democracy and fostering public trust in the electoral process.