EC Versus Law Minister!

Last Saturday Law Minister Mr. Salman Khurshid affirmed that the Election Commission (EC) was fully autonomous. This belated acknowledgment did not resolve the issue. Earlier the contentious issue about the functioning of the EC had resurfaced. The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Mr. SY Quraishi had questioned Mr. Khurshid on several issues. During the exchanges through media between the Law Minister and the CEC Mr. Khurshid said that "every institution is under some control" and the Election Commission was under the Law Ministry’s control. He was wrong of course.

The EC is under the control of law, not of the Law Ministry.

Mr. Khurshid went on to clarify that for administrative purposes such as sanctioning foreign trips the CEC required clearance from his Ministry.

Did not the mere reference to such administrative control betray political propensity to exert pressure if required?

Mr. Quraishi observed that it was important for the EC to maintain the perception of impartiality in order to function effectively.  The statement of the Law Minister eroded that perception. Consequently the CEC wrote a letter pointing this out to the Prime Minister (PM). The PM responded by assuring the CEC in a letter that the government respected the Constitutional status and “functional autonomy” of the Election Commission.  Sources in the EC ask what precisely is meant by “functional autonomy”.
And that brings us to the nub of the problem that continues to bedevil Indian politics and continues to be evaded alike by Indian politicians and jurists. 

One cannot say whether Indian politicians are dumb or dishonest. But their continued silence over questions repeatedly raised in these columns provokes that question. How can the letter and spirit of the Constitution regarding the “functional autonomy” of the EC, and indeed of all Constitutional bodies, be observed except by making these directly accountable to the President as is indicated in our written Constitution? Thereby the cabinet and the government would not exercise control over these bodies because there could arise frequently a conflict of interest. Only the President who is above the day to day functioning of the executive would exercise such control. 

The problem with allowing the President to exercise his responsibility in this matter is that it would open the door to all the functions that devolve on the office according to our written Constitution. And that would spell goodbye to our Westminster system of governance as we know it. This systemic problem will recur with increasing frequency. This space will be used to raise this question with repeated doggedness. Unless people recognize that our political system has failed and needs urgently to be reformed by reclaiming our Constitution both in letter and in spirit the crisis of governance will not abate.   


More by :  Dr. Rajinder Puri

Top | Analysis

Views: 3394      Comments: 2

Comment Can someone compare governance provided by NDA in 6 years Vs that provided by UPA in 8 yrs ?

Everyone loves to say that all parties are corrupt, yes true, but even then does it mean that all are equatable?

One simply can't draw any parallel between them.

We read and write every now and then about massacre of the system by actions and voices of the ruling class like the one above reported, the frequency and immorality of such acts are simply uncomparable. yet, all parties are equal !

Dinesh Kumar Bohre
16-Jan-2012 14:03 PM

Comment The rotten Kkkangress subverts everything it touches, whether CVC, CEC, the Judiciary or the President. Its' desperation to hang on to power at any cost is the root cause of the mess and overall deterioration of India. Every Constitutional Amendment, every Law is made so that this party can hang on to power, and not for national benefit.In an urbanizing India where the youth can actually read about the endless perfidy of the Kkkangress since, or even before, 1947 and where paidmedia is so obvious, the party knows that it is running out of sympathy. No state run by the party can be said to be well run.
In the current situation, the Kkkangress appointed Navin Chawla as CEC when it was widely known that he had the poorest credentials possible. Qureishi is merely Chawla's successor, and must know which side his bread is buttered. Having appointed him, the party tests waters to see how far it can push him---that's all there is to it.

16-Jan-2012 10:05 AM

Name *

Email ID

Comment *
Verification Code*

Can't read? Reload

Please fill the above code for verification.