Reevaluating the Model Code of Conduct’s Election Effecriveness

Syllabus:

GS-2:

Representation of People’s ActConstitutional BodiesIndian Constitution 

Focus:

The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) has recently sparked debate due to perceived inefficacies in its enforcement. Critics argue that the Election Commission (ECI) often struggles to enforce MCC provisions, allowing political parties to disregard regulations, thus calling for a stronger, more legally binding code.

Reevaluating the Model Code of Conduct's Election Effecriveness

Introduction: Questioning the Model Code of Conduct (MCC)

  • The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) has transformed into a distraction rather than a tool for fair election oversight.
  • Despite being designed to regulate ethical election conduct, the MCC often serves as an alibi for inaction or leniency, raising questions about its effectiveness.
  • Incidents like inflammatory speeches and accusations against political opponents frequently violate the MCC, yet enforcement by the Election Commission of India (ECI) remains limited.

Understanding the Model Code of Conduct (MCC):

  • The MCC is a consensus-based code agreed upon by political parties to regulate conduct during elections, ensuring a fair, respectful process.
  • It supports the Election Commission’s mandate under Article 324 of the Constitution to oversee free and fair elections.
  • Effective from the election schedule announcement until the result, the MCC restricts government actions, barring financial grants, new construction promises, and ad hoc appointments.

Enforceability of MCC:

  • Though not legally binding, the MCC has gained authority through strict enforcement by the EC over time.
  • MCC provisions can be enforced under related statutes like the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860, CrPC 1973, and Representation of the People Act (RPA) 1951.

Evolution of MCC:

  • Originated in Kerala (1960) before Assembly elections; formalised by the EC in 1974 and expanded in 1979 to include the ruling parties’ conduct.
  • Divided into sections covering general conduct, public meetings, processions, polling day, and specific guidelines for ruling parties.
  • Revised periodically, with the latest major revision in

Key Provisions:

  • General Conduct: Prevents divisive activities based on religion, caste, language, and personal attacks.
  • Meetings & Processions: Coordination with police and opposition to avoid clashes; prohibits burning effigies.
  • Polling Day: Restricts polling booth access, requires neutral identity slips, and appoints observers.
  • Party in Power: Restricts using government resources for election activities and combining official visits with campaign work.

Realities of MCC Implementation:

  • The ECI’s implementation of the MCC has led to several notable oversights; while rules exist, enforcement is often selective.
  • Common election violations—such as caste-based appeals, voter bribery, misuse of public resources, and bias in government communication—continue unchecked.
  • Reports indicate that the average candidate’s expenditure far exceeds legal limits, but the ECI’s scrutiny of such financial excesses is limited.
  • Paid news, media manipulation, and advantages to ruling parties are now normalised within elections, highlighting the MCC’s ineffectiveness in promoting transparency.

Purpose and Original Intent of MCC:

  • Originally, the MCC aimed to foster respect for the election law’s spirit, creating a level playing field and promoting fair campaigning.
  • It was intended to act as a bridge, addressing areas not covered by existing laws, particularly where the ruling party could exploit its position.
  • The MCC’s quick and efficient resolution of electoral disputes was meant to counteract lengthy legal processes, offering an alternative mechanism for upholding fair practices.
  • As a non-judicial body, the ECI was also meant to uphold a higher standard of fairness, independent from governmental influence, during elections.

Challenges in Enforcement and ECI’s Diminishing Role:

  • Over time, the ECI has diluted the MCC’s intent, reducing it to a complex, overly-detailed rulebook lacking focus on substantive issues.
  • Inconsistent application has shifted focus to trivialities, such as flag placements and meeting times, while grave violations like bribery and biassed media coverage go ignored.
  • Instances like the “ghuspai” remark by Prime Minister Modi illustrate the ECI’s hesitancy to confront influential figures on potential MCC violations.
  • Moreover, calls for transparency regarding discrepancies in election results, such as unexplained variations in vote counts, have gone unanswered.

Impacts of MCC on Governance and Public Trust:

  • The MCC’s imposition often disrupts routine governance, giving officials an excuse to suspend daily services, detrimentally affecting citizens.
  • The selective enforcement of the MCC keeps the appearance of fair elections intact but often leaves citizens disillusioned, especially when ethical breaches go unpunished.
  • Delays in election announcements, as seen in Maharashtra, allow political activities to continue without regulation, casting doubt on election transparency.
  • Such laxity in MCC application can lead to public scepticism, potentially causing disputed election outcomes and weakening democratic norms.

Conclusion and Need for Reform:

  • To restore trust, key MCC provisions could be incorporated into existing election laws, enhancing enforceability and reducing redundancy.
  • An empowered and autonomous ECI, committed to upholding both the letter and spirit of electoral law, is crucial to ensure free and fair elections.
  • Abandoning or significantly reforming the MCC could prevent it from serving as a mere formality and instead establish a system that genuinely holds candidates accountable for ethical election practices.

Call for Strengthening Election Laws and Mechanisms:

  • Revisiting Existing Laws
    • Current laws, such as the Representation of the People Act, require amendments to address new-age election malpractices.
    • Strengthening sections dealing with corrupt practices could make enforcement more effective.
  • Integration of MCC Provisions into Statutory Law
    • Key elements of the MCC could be codified within binding election laws.
    • This would enable the ECI to take legal actions instead of relying on voluntary compliance.
  • Establishing Swift and Transparent Dispute Resolution
    • A dedicated mechanism could address violations promptly to prevent prolonged adjudication.
    • Special election tribunals may help ensure quick redressal of grievances.
  • Ensuring Consistent Application Across States
    • Standardising enforcement could prevent discrepancies and ensure fairness in all elections.
    • States could adopt centralised guidelines to maintain uniformity in the MCC’s application.
  • Enhancing Monitoring with Technology
    • Leveraging AI and surveillance tools could improve monitoring of candidate activities.
    • Digital reporting platforms may simplify tracking expenditures and campaign activities.
  • Periodic Review of Election Laws
    • Regular updates to election laws could ensure alignment with evolving political scenarios.
    • A commission could assess the need for reforms every electoral cycle.

Enhancing the Election Commission’s Authority and Accountability:

  • Granting Autonomous Powers to the ECI
    • To act independently, the ECI needs broader powers, especially in enforcing MCC violations.
    • A constitutional amendment may be necessary to reinforce its authority.
  • Holding ECI Accountable for Inaction
    • The ECI could be subject to an external review board to ensure impartiality.
    • Mechanisms to report ECI’s lapses could enhance accountability to the public.
  • Encouraging Transparency in ECI’s Decisions
    • Publicising reasons for ECI’s actions or inactions on MCC violations could build trust.
    • Clear documentation would allow citizens to understand ECI’s decisions better.
  • Empowering Local Election Observers
    • Increasing the powers of local election observers could strengthen monitoring efforts.
    • Decentralising authority allows for better oversight in specific constituencies.
  • Improving Inter-Agency Collaboration
    • Coordinating with law enforcement and tax authorities could address campaign finance violations.
    • Joint efforts would enhance the ECI’s ability to detect and curb irregularities.
  • Establishing a Voter Grievance Platform
    • A dedicated platform for voter grievances related to MCC violations would be beneficial.
    • It would allow citizens to report violations and seek accountability effectively.

Conclusion:

The MCC, while originally intended to maintain election integrity, often lacks enforcement, reducing its impact on fair elections. Strengthening the ECI’s authority and codifying essential MCC provisions into law could enhance accountability, creating a more transparent and equitable election process across India.

Source: The Indian Express

Mains Practice Question:

Q: Critically analyse the effectiveness of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) in ensuring free and fair elections in India. Suggest measures to enhance its enforcement and address current challenges.

Associated Article:

https://universalinstitutions.com/model-code-of-conducts-economic-impact-and-duration/