By not censuring PM for his campaign speeches, the EC shows lack of courage

The Election Commission seems to lack the capacity to act against the PM. But I pray it proves I'm horribly wrong. If it does, I will readily apologise

Slowly but steadily, the Election Commission is exonerating the Prime Minister of the many charges he faces of multiple breaches of electoral laws. After weeks of deliberate prevarication and inexplicable silence, we are, at least, seeing action. However, in the case of Modi’s Wardha speech of April 1 I cannot understand how the Commission has concluded he is blameless. In the process it’s raised questions about its own judgement and impartiality.

At Wardha, Modi asked the audience not to forgive the Congress for insulting Hindus by coining the term Hindu terror. Translated into English, he said: “The Congress attempted to defame crores of Indians by using the term Hindu terror. How can the Congress be forgiven for insulting Hindus in front of the world? Weren’t you hurt when you hear the word Hindu terror?”

Now when Modi tells the audience not to forgive Congress, he is, in fact, telling them not to vote for the party. Even if he hasn’t put it that bluntly, that’s clearly what he means when he says this in an election campaign speech. And this automatically leads to the question: When he does this on the grounds that the Congress has insulted Hindus, isn’t the appeal made on the basis of religion? And if you bear in mind this was said to a preponderantly Hindu audience, the answer can only be a resounding yes. To me, this is so obvious I find it impossible to conclude otherwise.

If I am right, the Prime Minister has breached three separate electoral laws. Let me take you through them one by one. First, Section 1.3 of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC). This says: “There shall be no appeal to caste or communal feelings for securing votes”. Isn’t that almost exactly what Modi sought to do at Wardha? 

Next is Section 123 (3A) of the Representation of People’s Act. This deems as a corrupt practice any “attempt to promote feelings of enmity or hatred… on the grounds of religion”. Once again, isn’t it obvious the Wardha speech was doing precisely this?

Finally, there’s Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This talks of “promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion… and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony”. In this case, the offender can be punished with up to three years of imprisonment or a fine or both. When Narendra Modi suggests Congress cannot be forgiven for insulting Hindus, you could question if he’s promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion but he is clearly acting prejudicially to the maintenance of harmony. 

The Election Commission, of course, does not agree. However, it’s deliberately chosen not to explain why. No reasoning is given for exonerating the Prime Minister. The Commission’s letter to the Congress party, who made the complaint, simply says “in this matter no such violation has been noticed”. No doubt the letter claims “the matter has been examined in detail in accordance with the extant guidelines/provisions of the Model Code of Conduct, Representation of People’s Act (RPA) 1951 and the report of the Chief Electoral Officer, Maharashtra”, but after simply asserting this nothing more has been written. The details of the process by which it reached its conclusion have been omitted.

The other pertinent point is that the Commission’s letter says the Wardha speech has been considered in the light of the MCC and RPA but makes no mention of the IPC. It seems Modi’s alleged breach of the last has been completely overlooked.

Former Chief Election Commissioners like T S Krishnamurthy have said the Commission must explain how it’s come to its conclusion exonerating Modi. Leading Supreme Court lawyers like Sanjay Hegde have said that if no explanatory argument is provided that suggests there is no credible reason for the Commission’s conclusion. And Congress, of course, is considering taking the matter to court. 

I can only come to one conclusion. This Commission seems to lack the capacity to act against the Prime Minister. It’s a lot easier to exonerate him. Now when I say capacity I actually mean courage. This is a cowardly Commission but I pray the Commission acts and proves I’m horribly wrong. If it does, I will readily apologise.