Above advice

The Election Commission must not undermine itself by over-reaching

We are testing the waters a top Election Commission official said of the ECs statement to the BJP to not field Varun Gandhi. As a choice of phrase,it is odd; as a precedent,it is dangerous. The ECs legal defence is a little known and never used 1994 order,permitting the EC to withdraw national status to parties that violate the model code of conduct. But this is sophistry: the Supreme Court has unambiguously held that the EC cannot disqualify candidates,or interfere in the partys right to select them. And for good reason: errant candidates must be given a chance to explain,they must be shown the evidence against them. These are procedural requirements of natural justice that are in the realm of the courts. And it is the courts that must

punish Varun,not the EC. The ECs role ended when it filed an FIR against Varun Gandhi; prudence demanded that they wait for the courts to decide.

By jumping the gun,the EC leaves itself open to a rebuff. This is a dangerous road to take for an institution that has so far been seen as the fairest of arbiters. This reputation has come from the ECs consistent effort to avoid anything that may be seen to be arbitrary. The model code of conduct is a moral code,not a statutory one; the BJP could well disregard the EC and field Varun,as they have indicated they plan to do. This is an unneeded rebuff to the EC,something that it could have done without. The EC has now clarified that this is mere advice and not legally binding. But by playing to the public furore and the media-frenzy that Varun Gandhis vile speech has created,the EC has risked lowering its dignity.

Though hate-speech,when proven by the courts that is,not the EC is a legitimate ground to disqualify candidates,its an arrow that suits the quiver better than the bow. By overstepping its role,the Election Commission risks losing the faith that it now commands. It must not get into the business of advising political parties that way lies the possibility not just of legal challenge but also of charges of bias. Whatever it recommends must come with the unequivocal support of the law.