DNA Edit: EC must flex its muscles

The Election Commission, reports indicate, has written to the Ministry of Law and Justice seeking powers to move against those who are disobedient to its orders or who are disrespectful to its authority. To that end, the EC has requested the Law Ministry to amend the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, so as to empower it against those who malign the constitutional position it holds.

Obviously, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s strong comments have rubbed off EC officials the wrong way. In an interview, Kejriwal, while speaking on the office of profit case being decided by EC against 21 AAP MLAs, questioned the neutrality of two elections commissioners A K Joti and O P Rawat.

Kejriwal reportedly said that Joti was the chief secretary of Gujarat under the then Chief Minister Modi while Rawat was close to Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan. This, one suspects, was enough for EC officials to see red given that Rawat has recused himself from matters concerning AAP that are pending with the EC.

Irrespective of whether the Law Ministry gives its go-ahead to EC’s amendment bid or not, a key point that the EC should not be negligent of is that participatory democracy is not built on authorities quick to take offence. Imagine, if the Comptroller and Auditor General of India had taken umbrage at the former Union minister Kapil Sibal’s argument that there was no revenue loss in the 2G scam or that the Rs 1.76 lakh crore computed deficit arrived at was grossly overvalued.

Instead of being sidetracked or reduced to fits of institutional tantrums by Sibal’s arguments, the CAG stayed true to the course set for it by the Constitution and called out the political executive, UPA II in this case, for its policy and integrity failures. It was the CAG reports that brought the scam to the forefront and strengthened the democratic fibre by giving grist to the Opposition’s mill, which effectively mined the CAG reports to call out the previous dispensation on its procedural lapses. In case the amendment sees the light of the day and does indeed become a law, it seems a leap to put the EC at par, and imbue it with the same powers as the Judiciary.

The EC, in fact, could learn a lot from the courts as they often find themselves at the receiving end of criticism — some justified, some undeserved — but initiate contempt action only in the most egregious of criticisms. As an important pillar of democracy, it understands that not all of the judgments being pronounced by its judges will resonate with the people, or find concurrence.

It concentrates on its constitutional duty instead of lunging at every opportunity to raise contempt. The EC should take heed.