Election Commission Under Scrutiny: Does Selective Enforcement Of Rules Undermine Democratic Trust?
· Free Press Journal
“Show me the person, I will show you the rule” is a cynical aphorism that captures the rot in systems where identity outweighs evidence. In such a dispensation, guilt is calibrated not by the act but by the actor: the poor are punished swiftly, and the powerful are spared gently.
It is a charge too serious to be casually levelled against a constitutional body like the Election Commission of India, whose legitimacy rests entirely on its reputation for neutrality. Yet recent actions risk inviting precisely that suspicion.
Visit biznow.biz for more information.
Kharge controversy and swift action
Consider the controversy surrounding Mallikarjun Kharge. Reports that he had called Narendra Modi a “terrorist” spread quickly, only for Kharge to clarify that he had accused the Prime Minister of “terrorising” opposition parties and referred to “economic terrorism” by central agencies like the Enforcement Directorate.
Clarifications in political discourse are not unusual; misreporting and exaggeration often accompany the heat of campaigns. Yet the swiftness with which the Commission issued a show-cause notice to Kharge was striking.
Questions over selective enforcement
Contrast this alacrity with the Commission’s apparent diffidence in addressing more consequential violations. On April 18, at the height of campaigning in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed the nation via state broadcasters, repeatedly naming opposition parties and accusing them of sabotaging the Women’s Reservation Bill, mentioning the Congress 59 times.
Such a speech, delivered through official channels, raises serious questions under the Model Code of Conduct and the Representation of the People Act. The precedent set during the Indira Gandhi election case, where misuse of official machinery led to her unseating, remains a stark reminder of the standards expected in a democracy.
Similarly, the combative rhetoric employed by Amit Shah against Mamata Banerjee appears to have escaped equivalent scrutiny. When enforcement appears selective, even if unintentionally so, it chips away at institutional credibility.
Concerns over West Bengal conduct
The Commission’s conduct in West Bengal adds to the unease. The deployment of nearly 2.5 lakh central forces—roughly one security personnel for every 30 voters—is unprecedented in a state where large-scale booth capturing is not a contemporary concern. Restrictions such as banning two-wheeler campaigning, while allowing other modes, raise questions about their rationale and unintended political advantage.
Legacy and need for consistency
India’s electoral democracy has been fortified in the past by formidable Chief Election Commissioners like T. N. Seshan, T. S. Krishnamurthy, and J. M. Lyngdoh. Their legacy was not merely administrative efficiency but moral authority—the ability to stand firm against the government while remaining scrupulously fair to the Opposition. The present Commission would do well to remember that power alone does not command respect; consistency does.
In a democracy, rules must not only be fair but must also be seen to be applied fairly. Otherwise, the old cynicism returns, along with the quiet erosion of trust.