A government coming to the end of its term should avoid taking any decisions that will constrain the next administration unduly. It should in particular avoid such decisions that would cause the electoral process to be less than perfectly free and fair - the transfer of bureaucrats, for example. These principles lie at the heart of the Election Commission's model code of conduct. However, the application of these principles and of the code has been disappointingly inconsistent of late. Consider, for example, the recent release by Finance Minister P Chidambaram of the revised draft of the Direct Taxes Code, which now proposes, among other things, a higher tax on those earning an annual income of over Rs 10 crore. It is true that the Code itself might be a useful and long-delayed reform, and the Election Commission has reportedly opined that its approval was not required since the ministry had only invited comments to the proposals made therein. But the question must be asked: should the government release it so late in its tenure, much after the end of the last session of the current Lok Sabha?
Mr Chidambaram also announced that the government would consult with the Reserve Bank of India to ease the restrictions on gold imports into India now that immediate pressure on the current account had abated. While this is in general a desirable move, surely it is far more likely to "influence voters" than many other decisions that seem to require the Election Commission's approval? The government also appears to have put further diesel price increases on hold. This, too, is a questionable decision at election time. True, the government has hidden behind a fig leaf of protection - that the Kirit Parikh committee had suggested an interim subsidy cap of Rs 6 a litre. After the last price increase, given the prevailing low oil prices globally, the diesel subsidy is just fractionally below Rs 6 a litre. Still, an interim cap is not a permanent cap. The policy of raising diesel prices by a marginal amount every month had become a part of the system, and was hardly a political issue any more. The government's decision to essentially roll back the move to eliminate subsidies on diesel, thus, raises many questions.
While these incidents might pass unremarked, many others are being unnecessarily delayed. There is no reason for dozens of administrative tweaks to be sent off to the Election Commission for its approval. For this state of affairs, bureaucrats in New Delhi, some members of the Opposition, and the Election Commission are all responsible to one degree or another. Many in the government have sought to evade responsibility for decision making by sending all decisions to the Election Commission first. Their fears will only have risen by repeated statements by confident leaders of the Opposition that decisions would be reviewed by a new government. And the Election Commission has, in the past, demonstrated a somewhat odd and expansive view of what constitutes its bailiwick. It has amply demonstrated its capability in holding free and fair elections. It needs, however, to be continually aware of the temptation in India for any moderately successful institution to overreach itself and its adverse consequences, especially at a time when the executive is weakened.
