Why in the News?
- The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) has come under scrutiny after recent pre-poll cash transfers (e.g., Bihar’s Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana).
- Debate has revived over the MCC’s voluntary nature, the Election Commission’s enforcement limits, and proposals (past and present) to make parts of the MCC legally binding or to rethink the MCC in the context of simultaneous polls.
Key Highlights
- What is the MCC and when does it apply?
- The Model Code of Conduct is a set of political norms agreed by parties and issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI).
- It becomes operational from the date the election schedule is announced until results are declared, guiding campaign conduct, use of state resources and ministerial actions.
- MCC provisions relating to government action
- The MCC bars the ruling party from announcing new schemes, grants, or laying foundation stones that could influence voters.
- It permits continuation of ongoing programmes but aims to prevent fresh inducements timed to elections.
- Voluntary nature and enforceability issues
- The MCC is consensual (based on voluntary agreement among political parties and not legally binding) and not a law.
- Violation of MCC is often addressed by invoking other statutes like Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Indian Penal Code of 1860.
- The EC relies on moral suasion (persuading parties through public pressure and appeals to ethical conduct), censure (official reprimand or warning issued to erring candidates or parties), and administrative measures (restrictions on campaigns, transfers of officials, or withholding permissions for rallies).
- ECI avoids routine litigation because election timetables are short and courts slow.
- Contemporary tension: cash transfers and political timing
- Recent direct cash transfers launched just before polls (example: Bihar’s MMRY) illustrate how governments can push the envelope—arguing continuity or social welfare while critics see electoral inducement.
- Political actors creatively frame such programs as ongoing schemes to comply with the MCC letter while breaching its spirit.
- Debate on reform and simultaneous elections
- In 2013, the Standing Committee suggested that the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) should get legal backing, but the Election Commission opposed it, saying it would be hard to enforce within the short election period.
- Some experts say that the MCC rules on announcing new projects before elections should be changed or removed since they are often broken.
- Some experts believe that holding simultaneous elections could help reduce frequent misuse of government schemes for voter influence.
| Representation of the People Act, 1951
1. Purpose: a. The RPA, 1951, provides for the conduct of elections to Parliament and State Legislatures. b. It also deals with qualifications and disqualifications, election offences, corrupt practices, and dispute resolution related to elections. c. It complements the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which focuses on delimitation and electoral rolls. 2. Key Provisions: a. Conduct of Elections (Part II): i. Empowers the Election Commission of India (ECI) to supervise, direct, and control elections. ii. Covers procedures for nomination of candidates, withdrawal, polling, and counting. b. Qualifications and Disqualifications (Part III): i. Disqualifications on grounds such as: 1. Conviction for certain offences (e.g., bribery, hate speech). 2. Corrupt practices or failure to file election expenses. 3. Office of profit, insolvency, or unsound mind. ii. Section 8 specifically lists criminal disqualifications. c. Corrupt Practices and Electoral Offences (Part VII): i. Defines bribery, undue influence, booth capturing, and false statements as corrupt practices. ii. Makes such actions punishable with imprisonment or disqualification. d. Election Disputes (Part VI): i. Election petitions are filed in High Courts; appeals lie with the Supreme Court. ii. Only candidates or voters of a constituency can file a petition. e. Registration of Political Parties (Section 29A): i. Political parties must register with the ECI, which grants them symbols and recognition. ii. Recognised parties enjoy privileges like free broadcast time and reserved symbols. 3. Important Amendments: a. 2002 Amendment: Introduced mandatory declaration of criminal records, assets, and liabilities by candidates. b. 2010 Amendment: Allowed proxy voting for Indian citizens abroad (though not yet implemented). c. 2019 Amendment: Enabled electoral bonds and corporate donations through changes in related laws. 4. Significance: a. Ensures free and fair elections, the foundation of India’s democracy. b. Provides a legal framework to penalize malpractices, ensuring accountability. c. Strengthens public trust in the electoral process. |
| Simultaneous Elections
1. Meaning: a. Simultaneous Elections refer to holding elections for the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies at the same time i.e., voters cast their votes for both on a single day (or within the same phase). b. India followed this system after Independence till 1967, when election cycles diverged due to premature dissolutions of legislatures. 2. Constitutional and Legal Basis: a. The Constitution does not prohibit simultaneous polls. b. Articles 83(2) and 172(1) fix the tenure of Parliament and State Assemblies at five years, allowing alignment through constitutional amendments or synchronized dissolutions. c. The Election Commission of India (ECI) would oversee coordination under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 3. Arguments For Simultaneous Elections: a. Reduces election expenditure (public and party spending). b. Minimizes policy paralysis due to frequent Model Code of Conduct (MCC) enforcement. c. Improves governance by giving governments a full term to focus on policy. d. Enhances voter participation through convenience and unified political awareness. e. Strengthens national perspective and reduces regional fragmentation in policy debates. 4. Arguments Against Simultaneous Elections: a. Undermines federalism — national issues may overshadow state-level concerns. b. Logistical and security challenges in managing nationwide elections simultaneously. c. Premature dissolution of one legislature would disturb the synchronized cycle. d. Constitutional amendments (Articles 83, 85, 172, 174, 356) and political consensus are needed. e. May favor dominant national parties, reducing space for regional voices 5. Committees and Reports: a. Law Commission (170th Report, 1999): Supported simultaneous polls with phased implementation. b. NITI Aayog (2017 Discussion Paper): Proposed a two-phase model (Lok Sabha + half of states together, rest mid-term). c. High-Level Committee (HLC), 2024 chaired by Ram Nath Kovind, is exploring constitutional, logistical, and legal feasibility. 6. Way Forward: a. Requires constitutional amendments, political consensus, and technical preparedness (e.g., EVMs, manpower). b. Could begin with phased synchronization rather than a one-time overhaul. c. Must ensure balance between efficiency and federal autonomy. |
Implications
- Electoral fairness at risk: Frequent pre-poll announcements distort the level playing field, favouring incumbents and eroding voter neutrality.
- Erosion of public trust: Routine circumvention of MCC norms undermines faith in democratic procedures and the regulatory authority of the EC.
- Legal and administrative strain: Reliance on ad-hoc remedies (complaints, show-cause notices, FIRs) creates uncertainty and inconsistent outcomes.
- Policy vs politics dilemma: Genuine welfare initiatives risk being delegitimised as vote-seeking if launched near polls, complicating governance priorities.
- Push for institutional change: The controversy strengthens arguments for clearer statutory rules, better enforcement tools for the EC, or structural reforms such as simultaneous polls.
Challenges and Way Forward
| Challenges | Way Forward |
| MCC’s voluntary status and weak enforcement leads to frequent breaches. | Codify key MCC provisions into fast-track, election-period rules with proportionate administrative sanctions enforceable by the EC. |
| Creative circumvention by incumbents (rebranding new schemes as ‘ongoing’). | Require centralised declaration of new schemes and a cut-off moratorium before poll dates; strengthen transparency of scheme launch dates. |
| Judicial delay vs short election calendar hampers remedies. | Establish electoral benches/fast track mechanisms or empower tribunals for urgent pre-result electoral disputes. |
| Distinguishing welfare from inducement is difficult. | Develop clear objective tests (timing, quantum, targeting, publicity) to assess whether a measure has an electoral intent. |
| Political consensus deficit on reforms like simultaneous polls. | Initiate cross-party dialogue backed by empirical study on costs/benefits; pilot synchronised voting for certain tiers where feasible. |
Conclusion
The Model Code of Conduct is essential for fair campaigning, but its voluntary nature and routine circumvention—illustrated by last-minute cash transfers—expose structural weaknesses. Practical reform requires a mix of legal clarity, stronger EC powers, transparency in scheme launches, and political will. Without reform, MCC will continue to be honoured in breach rather than in observance.
| EnsureIAS Mains Question
Q. Critically evaluate the effectiveness of the Model Code of Conduct in India. Should core MCC norms be made legally binding or should structural reforms (e.g., simultaneous elections) be prioritised to prevent pre-poll inducements? (250 Words) |
| EnsureIAS Prelims Question
Consider the following statements: 1. The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is a legally binding document enacted by Parliament. 2. The Election Commission of India can take administrative actions (such as censure or debarment) against parties or candidates for MCC violations. 3. One argument in favour of simultaneous elections is that they reduce the frequency of election-period restrictions imposed by the MCC. How many of the following statements are correct? Answer: b) 2 and 3 only Explanation: Statement 2 is correct: The EC has administrative powers—including censure, public reprimand, withholding permission for public gatherings, recommending prosecutions, or derecognising parties in extreme cases—to enforce MCC compliance, though it often uses moral suasion first. Statement 3 is correct: Advocates of simultaneous elections argue that holding fewer nationwide polls reduces recurring election-period constraints (e.g., MCC-related project moratoria) that incentivise incumbents to announce benefits repeatedly close to poll dates. |
