Twenty AAP MLAs have been disqualified. Naturally, everyone’s attention is focused on the situation. The Election Commission (EC) has made its decision, forwarding its recommendations to the President of India.
In the meantime, the Aam Aadmi Party has appealed to the Supreme Court; there is still some hope for them. But the important question here is, on what basis has the EC issued this verdict? Is this decision fair? Will it stand up to moral scrutiny (ethical exaction)?
Questions will be raised about the Election Commission’s decision. This will not go down well in history – because this decision won’t be able to tip the scales of justice.
There will be questions on whether this decision was taken under the influence of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Did Chief Election Commissioner Achal Kumar Joti decide to carry out a ‘favour’ for someone just before his retirement? Joti sahib is considered to be quite close to the ‘Big Boss’. He was Narendra Modi’s Chief Secretary during his tenure as Chief Minister of Gujarat .
Joti was later made the chairman of the Kandla Port Trust. His appointment as Chief Election Commissioner after the Modi government coming to power cannot be a mere accident. Several eyebrows were raised at the time of his appointment.
Similar questions had been raised when TN Seshan was appointed the Chief Election Commissioner (1990–96). Seshan was believed to be close to Rajiv Gandhi and was his Security Secretary during the his tenure as Prime Minister.
When Seshan was given the Election Commissioner’s post after Rajiv Gandhi’s death, people said a “Congress puppet” had been appointed to the post.
At the time, PV Narasimha Rao was heading a minority government. But the steps Seshan took (no matter the difficulties they caused for the Congress), ensured fair and clean elections – free from bloodshed and booth-capturing, for the first time. Seshan thus, became a messiah of sorts.
Revisiting Past Election Commissioners
Many others have held the post of the Election Commissioner since then. Among them, James Michael Lyngdoh stands out. I was a reporter when he held the post. Lyngdoh was a quiet person. Very little was heard about him in the public sphere, but during the Gujarat Elections at the time, he ignored all the ‘threats’ and ‘pressures’ of Narendra Modi and the BJP, and conducted elections in accordance with the core values laid down by the Constitution.
After Seshan, Lyngdoh helped uphold the reputation of the Election Commission. The same however, cannot be said of many others.
But the way the sanctity of the position has been undermined in the last three years raises questions about the Commission’s collusion with the PMO. The dignity of the office is indeed being eroded.
Is the EC Indulging in Favouritism?
The government was facing unpopularity after demonetisation, and soon after the policy’s implementation, the BJP was faced with elections in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Punjab and Goa. But the EC did not announce the elections until Modi made some populist announcements.
As soon as election dates are announced, the rules under the EC’s Model Code of Conduct come into force. With that in place, the PM would have been unable to make announcements to woo the electorate. Thus, the announcement was delayed. This is why no immediate decision was taken on the Ahmed Patel issue during the Rajya Sabha elections.
When the Congress pushed for it, a decision was taken in the middle of the night. There was no need for this. But this benefitted the BJP during the Gujarat elections.
It is common knowledge that the BJP was in bad shape in Gujarat due to demonetisation and GST. The business community was especially upset over the implementation of the GST. The Commission, while announcing a date for elections in Himachal Pradesh, evaded Gujarat.
This, despite the fact that both elections were supposed to be conducted together, results were to be declared together, and new governments were to be formed at the same time.
Till this day, there has been no concrete answer to why this was done.
Being ‘Hanged’ Without Trial?
Meanwhile, the Modi government came up with various forms of relief under the GST and, other development activities also took place. After this, the dates were announced. All of this strengthens the suspicion that these steps were taken at the direction of the government. This has adversely affected the reputation of the Commission. Serious questions have been raised.
The disqualification of 20 AAP MLAs further strengthens this suspicion. This is perhaps the first time in the country that the accused have been sentenced without giving them a chance to present their side of the story.
Earlier, it had been questioned whether the EC had any right to decide on this issue after the High Court had already delivered a verdict. It was debated for a long time.
Eventually the Commission said that it was within their rights to do so, they can also hear the issue. Consequently, regulated proceedings and hearings had to be initiated. But this hasn’t happened as yet. Without ever hearing what the MLAs had to say, they were declared guilty.
What sort of justice is this? Can an accused be hanged without any trial? Disqualifying the MLAs is akin to being hanged without a fair trial.
Hope for Unbiased Verdict
If the Commission had bothered to listen to the MLAs, they would have found out that the MLAs don’t draw any salary as Parliamentary Secretaries, nor have they been given any offices or bungalows. They haven’t been given cars or any other perks either. All this is detailed in their appointment letter. Then, why the question of holding offices of profit?
It appears that this decision was taken to hurt the AAP government. The BJP has been looking for an opportunity to do this for a while. MLAs being thrown into jail under ‘false cases’, income tax notices being sent to AAP on ‘fake charges’, among others – all these seem to be attempts in this direction.
This time, the support of a Constitutional body has been taken.
However, it is hoped that the judiciary will listen to AAP MLAs’ version of the story and then issue an unbiased verdict, in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution, in which the sanctity of justice lies.
(The writer is an author and spokesperson of AAP. He can be reached at @ashutosh83B. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)
(We Indians have much to talk about these days. But what would you tell India if you had the chance? Pick up the phone and write or record your Letter To India. Don’t be silent, tell her how you feel. Mail us your letter at lettertoindia@thequint.com. We’ll make sure India gets your message)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)