6 min readDec 20, 2021 09:59 AM IST
First published on: Dec 20, 2021 at 03:30 AM IST
Should electoral processes be reformed from time to time or not? Who are the stakeholders in reforming the electoral process? The Election Commission, the political parties and the central government of the day. For such reforms to fructify, should there not be discussions between the Election Commission and the central government before a final proposal is brought to Parliament? If we go by the outrage built over a recent such meeting, it would seem that routine meetings between the central government and Election Commission are the end of constitutional democracy in India.
Frequent interactions between different institutions are an established practice in any democratic set-up, that too on questions of reforming systems. It is important to take the inputs of all the stakeholders, particularly the Election Commission, when the subject is electoral reforms. As long as the meeting is not held to discuss any subject relating to the conduct of elections, there is no impropriety in the Election Commission meeting with government officials.
S Y Quraishi, the former Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), has gone ballistic in his recent article (‘The arm’s length test’, IE, December 18) about the current CEC and the election commissioners (ECs) attending a meeting with the principal secretary to the prime minister. He says that this is against the principles of independence of the office of the CEC.
Let’s look at his arguments carefully.
First, the Indian state has three arms — the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. The CEC, the central vigilance commissioner, the comptroller and auditor general, the governor of the RBI and the director of the CBI are some such instruments of the executive. It should be a matter of news if these arms of the executive don’t meet each other on issues of mutual concern, and not the other way round. Therefore, Quraishi’s question about whether the Chief Justice of India (CJI) would similarly meet the principal secretary to the prime minister is facile in as much as the judiciary is not an arm of the executive. And yet, does the judiciary not meet law ministry officials on matters concerning judicial reforms?
The independence of any functionary is defined by his conduct and the integrity of the institution by the people manning it. Merely meeting equally-placed branches of the executive would not compromise this independence. The principal secretary to the prime minister enjoys a cabinet rank. So it is not as if he is a functionary lower in status to the CEC or the ECs, as Quraishi has erroneously suggested.
In case the CJI wishes to discuss an administrative matter with the CEC, can he invite the CEC or not? Of course. Can the CEC refuse on the grounds that it undermines his independence? Certainly not. Similarly, if the speaker of the Lok Sabha wants a discussion with the CEC and invites him, will the CEC refuse? Of course not.
So, if the prime minister wants a discussion with the CEC on some administrative matter, the CEC cannot refuse to attend. His independence is in no danger of being compromised. It will depend solely on his integrity. Nothing else.
Whether a person remains independent and uninfluenced by any extraneous factor is wholly and solely the person’s choice. If the person does not possess integrity, even without meeting the principal secretary to the prime minister, he can subserviently take orders over telephone. Who can prevent that? Conferring in open meetings is far better than encrypted calls.
Incidentally, the safeguard that Quraishi so proudly parades from his term — that he met the law minister in the presence of the full commission to maintain transparency — was followed in the present case as well. What was good for him is not good for the present CEC?
The only real objection that Quraishi seems to have is that the CEC is higher in the Warrant of Precedence to the principal secretary to the prime minister and, therefore, the mountain should come to Mohammad. That actual, far-reaching electoral reforms, benefitting the poor, have been the outcome of this meeting is of no concern to him. All he seems to be hung up on is who travelled to whose office, even if virtually.
But there is a deeper malaise in the concerted outrage built over this routine meeting. As a journalist recently pointed out, to many, although the Modi government is democratically elected, it is not constitutional. It would seem that governments run only by one family are constitutional and the rest are interlopers.
It is this thinking that informs the entire outlook of the ancien regime holdouts and beneficiaries, despite two consecutive sweeping electoral verdicts. How dare a government formed by anyone else take any decision? And if they do, then it must be unconstitutional!
Let retired civil servants not act holier than thou. It is in bad taste for Quraishi to criticise his junior colleagues in this fashion. Your days are over. Live in peace.
This column first appeared in the print edition on December 20, 2021 under the title ‘Such ado about a meeting’. The writer is former secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India
CEC Sushil Chandra (centre) with ECs Rajiv Kumar (left) and Anup Chandra Pandey in Chandigarh Thursday. (Express Photo: Kamleshwar Singh) 
Share
