The Indian Political Scene

Mamidipudi Pattabhiram

Elections in six States have just been com­pleted and although the Congress(I) made the grade in Orissa, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh, its reverses in Maharashtra and Gujarat have eroded its authority to a considerable ex­tent. What impact it will have in the Lok Sabha elections due next year in May will have to be seen for it will determine the future of the Congress(I) itself apart from that of the Prime Minister, Mr. P. V. Narasimharao. National poli­tics is in for some drastic changes and it would be an extremely difficult task for the Congress (I) to regain its foothold in the States in which it has been humbled. There seems to be an anti­establishment wave whatever party has been in power and this explains to some extent the suc­cess of the Congress (I) in Orissa while it was defeated in States including Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka much earlier. There has been lot of speculation about Bihar but there is no doubt that in spite of all the precautionary steps violence has taken a heavy toll. The Chief Election Commissioners efforts for a fair poll in Bihar must be applauded although some of his actions in this connection were arbitrary. Almost it is the first time that elections were being held to an As­sembly after its term expired without the State being under President’s rule and this has raised several important constitutional issues.

Meanwhile the Supreme Court’s verdict on the status and powers of the two Election Commissioners Mr. G. V. S. Krishnamurty and M. S. Gill vis-a-vis the Chief Election Commis­sioner is awaited but whatever it is it would be relevant in this context to note what the founding fathers of the Constitution had to say on the matter in particular and on the Election Com­mission of India in general. Dr. Ambedkar who piloted the Constitution Bill in the Constituent Assembly dealt with the subject in all its details. Actually, a Committee which was set up to deal with Fundamental Rights made the suggestion that it should be recognised that the independence of the elections and the avoidance of any interfer­ence by the executive in elections should be re­garded as a fundamental light and provided for in the chapter dealing with Fundamental Rights. Mr. C. Rajagopalachari, however, maintained that franchise would not ordinarily be a part of fundamental rights. After a great deal of discussion it was resolved that instead of being included in the chapter on Fundamental Rights the provi­sion regarding the setting up an independent Election Commission along with the related proposals should find a place in some other part of the Constitution.

Equally important was the discussion in the Constituent Assembly as to whether it was proper for a Central Election Commission to have jurisdiction over election to the State Assemblies. For instance, H. V. Pataskar moved an amendment restricting the jurisdiction of the Central Election Commission appointed by the President to fed­eral elections. The object of the amendment was to provide that the supervision of State elec­tions should not be vested in the President but should be left to the Governor or some other agency in the States. This view of Pataskar found favour with many members including N. Gopalaswamy Ayyangar who agreed that while the actual conduct of elections and the executive machinery that might be required for conducting them would have to be mobilised through the State governments, the superintendence and con­trol should be impartial and be in the hands of an impartial tribunal.

Even the drafting committee of the Con­stituent Assembly made the recommendation that the Election Commission for supervising the State Elections should be appointed by the respective Governors. However this view underwent a radical change when the Articles came up for discussion in the Assembly. Dr. Ambedkar in­troduced an entirely new Article which made a comprehensive provision for a Central Election Commission to be incharge of all Central and State elections. Although there were protests on the ground that it will impinge on State au­tonomy and made the Centre all-powerful, Dr. Ambedkar defended it by advancing the plea that the executive government in certain States was instructing and managing things in such a manner that “those people who do not belong to them racially, culturally or linguistically are being excluded from brought on the electoral rolls” and in order to prevent this injustice being done to such persons there was no alternative to departing from the original proposal of having separate. Election Commissions in States. K. M. Munshi even went to the extent of saying that complaints in fact had been received that certain State Governments could not be “trusted” to be as impartial in elections as they should be. This drew loud protest from some members who vigorously complained that the Centre was reducing the States to the position of municipal bodies without initiatives.

On the compostion of the Election Com­mission Dr. Ambedkar recalled that the drafting committee proposed to have permanently “one man called the Chief Election Commissioner” so that the skeleton machinery would always be available. He was obviously referring to a sug­gestion that was seriously made that an Election Commission could be brought into existence just on the eve of an election and a permanent body was not really called for. Dr. Ambedkar said that elections no doubt took place once in five years but by-elections were going to take place on and often. Further, assemblies might be dis­solved before the period of five years and con­sequently the electoral rolls should have to be kept up-to-date all the time so that the new elec­tions could be held without any difficulty and promptly. It was, therefore, felt that having re­gard to these exigencies it would be “sufficient” if there was permanently in session one officer to be called the Chief Election Commissioner while when the elections came up the President might further add to the machinery by appointing other members to the Election Commission.

It is thus amply clear what was envisaged by the Constitution makers was that a multi-mem­ber Commission could be brought into existence only when the need arose. It would also be in­teresting to note what Dr. Ambedkar had to say on the conditions of service and the tenure of office of the members of the Election Commis­sion. He said that the Chief Election Commis­sioner “shall not be liable to be removed” ex­cept in the same manner as a judge of the Su­preme Court. “If the object of this House is that all matter relating to elections should be outside the control of the executive government of the day, it is absolutely necessary that the new ma­chinery which we are setting up, namely, the Elec­tion Commission should be irremovable by the executive by a mere fiat.” That was why, he said, the Chief Election Commissioner was given the same status so far as removability was concerned as had been given to the judges of the Supreme Court. “We do not of course propose to give the same status to the other members of the Commission.” Dr. Ambedkar added that “we have left the matter to the President as to the circumstances wider which he should deem fit to remove any other member of the Election Com­mission subject to one condition that the Chief Election Commissioner must recommend that the removal is just and proper.”

This statement of Dr. Ambedkar did not go unchallenged for Hridayanath Kunzu, for in­stance, pointed out that it was not proper that the Chief Election Commissioner should have the final say on the removal of the Election Commissioners.

Replying to the criticism, Dr. Ambedkar said that so far as the question of removal of the Chief Election Commissioner and the election Commissioners was concerned “the provisions which are incorporated are adequate and noth­ing more is necessary for the purpose.” Given this ground it is apparent that the founding fathers did not want a position of equality be­tween the Chief Election Commissioner who is a permanent constitutional functionary and the Election Commissioners who are to be appointed as and when they become necessary. But the entire issue became complicated mainly because the present incumbent, Mr. T. N. Seshan, had been on occasions taking decisions which were arbi­trary and even ill conceived. The Government, therefore thought it necessary to appoint perma­nent Election Commissioners so that vital deci­sions could be taken by a multi-member Com­mission after close consultation among the mem­bers.

First, an ordinance was issued which was later approved by parliament appointing two Commissioners enjoying the same status as that of the Chief Election Commissioner although the CEC will be the chairman when they met for dis­cussions. It was provided that decisions will be on the basis of majority if unanimity could not be reached. Mr. Seshan however felt that the appointment of the Commissioners was moti­vated by a desire on the part of the Government to clip his wings. When he challenged the valid­ity of their appointment in the Supreme Court, the apex court gave an interim order confirming for the time being the superiority of the Chief Election Commissioner by stating that on matters coming up before them, the Chief Election Commissioner’s views were final. With the re­sult that the two Commissioners have not been functioning at all and for practical purposes the Election Commission has remained a single-member body. The question is whether the Government was right in altering the conditions of ser­vice by a statutory enactment which seems to go against the intentions of the constitution-makers. It would have been more appropriate if the changes that were brought about were by means of a constitutional amendment.

[Note: The matter has been finally settled recently by the Supreme Court that all the Election Commissioners enjoy the same rank.          Editor]

‘The Indian academic world is laden with deep somnolence without the justifi­cation of deep potations; it is mental vacuum and not vintage port, which produces the abstracted air on the faces of the professors. The inanition, if any, is broken only by discontent’

–NIRAD CHOUDHURY

‘No form of adult education which ignores the spiritual basis of life, will really meet the needs of the country. Education is primarily the process by which a commu­nity preserves its character and transmits its heritage. Both in Ancient India and in Greece it is regarded as an initiation into the values that govern life which enables the initiated one to raise himself over the external conditions ofexistence. The educated man is freed from the chains of degrading reality and develops a human outlook. True education sounds the note of the universal man, the human as distinct from the national or the racial or the communal.’

–Dr. S. RADHA KRISHNAN