The saying “Birds of a feather flock together” is being materialised with regard to the Constituent Assembly (CA) election to be held on April 10. The government announced the new date on Jan. 11 after postponement of the polls twice in the past. Two days earlier, it was reported that the government had released a million rupee per member of the legislature-parliament (LP) for developmental activities in his/her constituency. Members of Parliament were found scurrying to get their hands on the cheques as if they might miss out should they turn up late. The minister for local development, a Maoist nominee, justified the largesse as being sanctioned in the annual budget. But his conventional reply does not convince impartial observers, as this move is definitely aimed at influencing voters.

Surprisingly, the Election Commission (EC) issued a notice on Jan. 12 for the enforcement of the code of conduct with effect from Jan. 16. This has indeed drawn the attention of election watchers. They are aghast to see the Election Commission playing the role of a passive spectator when the government is misusing public fund for influencing/bribing voters to vote in favour of the sitting Members of Parliament, irrespective of the fact that about one-third of the MPs are nominated and do not represent any constituency. It should be borne in mind that election code of conduct has statutory binding, and considered the right of Election Commission in South Asia. In India, the Code of Conduct is called model code of conduct, only morally binding on all stakeholders. But it is invariably followed to the letter. Interestingly, in Sri Lanka, there is neither election commission nor any provision for a code of conduct.

Historically, there was no such provision in the Electoral Act till 1996. During the two general elections in 1991 and 1994, the code of conduct was only morally binding. The related Act was amended in 1996 on the persistent request of the EC for five days even as the House committee was deliberating on the draft of amendment. It was considered a victory for the EC to make it legally binding. The code of conduct was to be made effective with the government’s announcement of date for election. It should clearly be understood that no legislature is ever interested in passing such an act, which restricts its unbridled rights. Only at this point, the importance of an impartial constitutional institution like an all-powerful EC can be felt.

For this very reason, the provision for such an election commission has been introduced in the electoral laws in countries like the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The main job of EC is to maintain a level playing field for all contestants, irrespective of their political affiliations. The decision to release the fund will definitely facilitate those candidates who are in the House and not those on the outside or the independent candidates who have to fund their own campaigns. Thus, the EC will be shirking its duty if it does not take this issue seriously and keeps mum. It will also be considered overtly partisan. Neutral observers feel that the EC committed its first mistake when it changed the earlier mode of enforcing the code of conduct without detailed deliberations. It could not have been caught unguarded had the code of conduct been enforced immediately after announcement of the poll date.

It seems the Election Commission failed to look at previous provisions in the code of conduct. The code of conduct issued in 1996 had placed four election campaign expenditure ceilings for all 205 constituencies. The ceiling stood at Rs 75,000 for the House of Representatives election in 1991. The amount was increased to 100,000, again without any kind of rational calculation, for the mid-term polls in 1994. After the mid-term poll, the EC prepared and issued a standing code of conduct enforceable with the announcement of any electoral date. It was made effective from the five by-elections held in 1996. The ceiling for the CA polls campaign expenditure appears to be realistic as prices have gone up. However, the primary function of the ceilings is to see to it that even the candidates with limited means can contest the election. But one fails to see the reason behind the enhancement and abolition of the four slabs of ceilings based on four geographic regions.

Unless the EC has obtained very bad feedback about the previous ceiling provisions, a move to remove them can only be deemed irrational. The EC has been empowered to conduct fair and free election. It has to see that the election is economic, free from filthy competition and abuse of power. Simultaneously, it must maintain a level playing field for all contestants. The EC is hence strongly advised to order the government not to issue cheques to MPs and to stop the misuse of state funds. It should also instruct district local development officers not to use the funds till election results are announced.

Mishra is ex-election commissioner