Supreme Court in action: Will institutions change course?
During Modi’s rule, the ECI lost its impartiality. It is seen as an ally of the ruling party. The Supreme Court has intervened at a time when institutions have become completely dysfunctional
The data show the dark arena of coercion and extortion through government agencies. A gaming company is donating huge amounts of money. Similarly, pharmaceutical companies have donated liberally to political parties. Some donor companies are suspected to be linked with Pakistan and China, and others might be cell companies
This is the Supreme Court’s week. The Court must be congratulated for exposing the dark side of elections. It is well known that the Election Commission of India has never been able to provide a level playing field for all political parties. Parties with effective control over money and muscle power can manipulate elections. But it has never been there that the Election Commission of India and other institutions side with the ruling party. During Modi’s rule, the ECI lost its impartiality. It is seen as an ally of the ruling party. The Supreme Court has intervened at a time when institutions have become completely dysfunctional.
The ECI has never been seen issuing notices to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah for their utterances that not only violate constitutional provisions but also degrade the sanctity of elections. The provisions prohibit the use of religion and caste, unverified allegations against the opposition party, using the name of the army, etc., but the Commission is never seen taking them to task. Many argue that these violations have been made during earlier regimes too, and nothing is new in them. This argument hardly holds water. We must remember how Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s election was countermanded for a minor violation of the Model Code of Conduct. The Court found her guilty of using the machinery of the Uttar Pradesh government for erecting stages, installing loudspeakers, and building barricades. For the other violation, she was held guilty of taking the assistance of her Officer on Special Duty, Yashpal Kapoor, for campaigning. He was found delivering speeches while he was in the office. He only resigned before he was appointed election agent for Indira Gandhi.
Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha of the Allahabad High Court disqualified Mrs. Gandhi for six years from contesting elections. Can we imagine a court of justice going that far to protect the law and the Constitution? The Commission and the courts openly refer to the position and status of the prime minister. Is it constitutional? Is it not a violation of the principle of equality before the law?
The intervention of the Supreme Court in the Electoral Bond case has been historic. It declared it illegal and directed the State Bank of India to give the details of the electoral bonds. The Court dismissed the application of the SBI to give more time to upload the details as to who purchased the electoral bonds and who redeemed them. The SBI uploaded the data without disclosing the alphanumeric number of the electoral bonds to circumvent the details of which company financed which party. The Supreme Court intervened again and issued a show cause notice to the SBI.
The proceedings, judgments, and outcome of this case have conclusively proved that the present regime has forced institutions to cooperate with it in violating the constitutions. Institutions have also been found to be readily available for it. Though the SBI had tried its best to obstruct the path that led us to the relationship between donors and beneficiaries, the available data indirectly made it possible. The data show the dark arena of coercion and extortion through government agencies. A gaming company is donating huge amounts of money. Similarly, pharmaceutical companies have donated liberally to political parties. Some donor companies are suspected to be linked with Pakistan and China, and others might be cell companies. The firmness shown by the Supreme Court has revealed one thing: the sanctity of the institutions could be restored if the judiciary acts at an appropriate time.
One important question comes to mind: whether we can see these happenings in isolation. We cannot. Unlike earlier times, recent happenings are not isolated cases of corruption and violations of the law. Here, we find an institutionalized form of intimidation and coercion. Companies were found to be purchasing electoral bonds soon after they were raided by the Enforcement Directorate and the Income Tax Department. How can a quid pro quo be denied in these cases? Jagdeep Chhokar of the Association of Democratic Reforms says that the money collected through electoral bonds is only a small part of the amount that is spent in elections. Former Chairman of the RBI, Raghuram Rajan, says that opposition parties do not get legal money through electoral bonds, and the government prevents them from using cash. He says it prevents creating a level playing field. The BJP has been the only party with lavish offices at district headquarters. It does not have any hesitation in using government resources as well. It freely uses public money to advertise its party program. The money from the government of India is spent to advertise Modi’s guarantee. All the advertisements refer to the Government of India as Modi’s government. Is it constitutional?
Our discourse would be incomplete if we ignored the ideological dimensions of recent developments. We must emphasize that the ruling BJP hardly believes in the kind of democracy we established in 1947. The party’s ideological roots can be traced back to fascism. The BJP is the political wing of the RSS, and the latter's admiration of Mussolini is well known. Every attempt to disrupt democracy should be seen in that context only. One of the recent examples of such an endeavor is the report on ‘one nation, one election’. The way the Ramnath Kovind committee was formed only shows that the government did not want to involve all the stakeholders, including opposition parties. The real intention of the BJP is to undermine federalism. In the BJP’s conception of the nation, India is a Hindu Rashtra with one religion, one language, and one identity.
The BJP despises the idea of purity of means, and this very ideological position explains their current endeavor to apply every means to win elections.
(The author is a senior journalist. He has experience of working with leading newspapers and electronic media including Deccan Herald, Sunday Guardian, Navbharat Times and Dainik Bhaskar. He writes on politics, society, environment and economy)
