No censorship, please

All problems usually have solutions. But the solutions can be good as well as bad ones. The decision by the Election Commission (EC) to vet political advertisements before they are released is a case in point. No one can deny that there is a genuine problem.

This general election has been marked by some especially vicious campaigning. Leaders who should know better have been saying all sorts of things about one another. Not content, their supporters have been releasing some rather nasty stuff about rivals. Someone was bound to complain.

The Supreme Court listened and decided that the EC should deal with the matter. After all, it is enjoined to conduct free and fair elections. In the interests of the latter, it has decided to enlarge its ambit. A solution has thus been found. But is it a good solution?

Not so, for at least three reasons. First, the EC will abridge the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution. The right is not unfettered, but the exceptions are very clear and categorical. Bad-mouthing political opponents is not a part of those exceptions unless libel is committed and for that there are judicial remedies. It seems reasonable therefore to expect the EC to be challenged on the issue, if not immediately then at some point in the future. An important principle is at stake.

It is this principle that results in the second infirmity. This is that the EC's decision really amounts to censorship. It allows an official to decide on what is permissible and what is not. It confers on him the right to stand in judgement on taste by deciding that some advertisements are in good taste while others are not.

It is worth asking, therefore, if tomorrow the EC will decide on which news reports can be published and which ones not. That would be the logical conclusion. What makes this decision even more perverse is the fact that there is no statute under which the EC can assume such power.

Third, suppose the EC decides that a particular ad is ok. And after it is aired, someone complains. What happens then? Will the EC reverse its position? Or will the matter have to go to some other authority? And, heaven forbid, what if the EC exhibits an unconscious but systematic bias?

These and similar issues are bound to crop up if the EC goes ahead with its decision. The end result will be to tarnish its image. By far the best thing would be to allow all ads to be released and then, if there is a complaint, stand on judgement. Censorship is a bad idea and the EC should not succumb to it, however tempting it might be.