We need to have immediate deterrence: Nasim Zaidi

Interview with Chief Election Commissioner

Chief Election Commissioner Nasim Zaidi tells Aditi Phadnis bribery should be made a cognisable offence so that those trying to influence elections through “gifts” are jailed as soon as they are caught.

The government has enormous power in the implementation — and circumvention — of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC). This election has seen the Election Commission writing several times to the government on the alleged or apprehended violation of MCC. I would not say confrontation, but the EC has questioned many of the government’s decisions — on the timing of the Budget, on Cabinet announcements.

The code of conduct is an instrument that political parties have agreed on and have handed over to the commission for execution. It has also been validated by the Supreme Court. MCC ensures that the party in power is not able to utilise resources to its advantage in the election process and to that extent, ensures a level playing field.

There are occasions when such instances are brought to our knowledge — either suo moto or by way of complaint. One matter you have referred to was also brought to us. 

This is one part. The cabinet secretary in the central government and the chief secretary in the state government are our nodal points. Any matter pertaining to developments in the Centre or state are referred to them. Actually, implementation of the MCC is the responsibility of the cabinet secretary. 

Against this background, the issue of budget-making was naturally referred to the cabinet secretary to respond to complaints received by us. All further clarifications were also referred to the cabinet secretary. I must say the cabinet secretary continued to furnish replies in time.

On one occasion he didn’t furnish replies in time and you wrote to him saying, “don’t expect EC to clear proposals if they come at the 11th hour”.

That is one particular issue. In subsequent communications, they gave responses within the time limit. And the matter ended on a good note when they said they won’t provide promises or assurances or any schemes relating specifically to the poll-bound state. They committed and it did not happen. To that extent, it ended on a good note.

Our code of conduct: Matters are referred by the government to the commission before they undertake certain activities and announcements. We received something like 187 references from the government and 99 of these, we cleared in 48 hours. 

But there were certain cases where the commission was not given sufficient time to study and dispose of them. That is why the communication to the cabinet secretary that if the government refers the matter to the commission and gives us 48 hours, we will clear them at the fastest possible speed. 

There were a couple of non-adherances — three or four matters which the commission considered and told the government that this should not have happened. But the majority of them were cleared. This also shows the government pays serious attention to the commission’s framework of code of conduct.

Overall, the code of conduct is taken seriously and followed. I think this summarises the issue.

In your tenure, have there been instances where you have had to tell the government multiple times — don’t do this?

It varies from situation to situation. Sometimes you people get to know. Sometimes, you don’t get to know. It keeps happening. By and large, as the data tells us, the governments pay serious attention. 

So you’ve never had the prime minister call you and say “arre, aapne kya kar diya (what have you done)”?

The commission stands on a totally independent and autonomous footing. No one has ever called me. To be fair, no one has ever called me.

We have said that there should be a screening committee headed by the cabinet secretary. Before the matter comes to the EC, the committee itself should take a view whether it really needs to be referred to us.

We have also said that matters, which are going to the Cabinet for clearance during an election, must be referred to us.

We are also asking that there should be a nodal officer in the ministries, who should review decisions in the context of the code of conduct before referring those to us.

If matters pertain to the Cabinet we correspond with the cabinet secretary most of the time. But no ministers or anyone else is involved in this process. Our entire correspondence is with the permanent bureaucracy.

How do you look back at your tenure?

There are a whole set of new interventions. Voter-centric initiatives, new IT initiatives for election management (75,000 permissions covering a variety of activities both by individuals and political parties were issued online), online public grievance and complaints (around 40,000) were also cleared electronically.

Use of Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) with electronic voter machines has expanded. Here the voter gets to see the slip recording his vote. We have used VVPAT in 112 constituencies  in 51,875 booths in these elections. That said, I must emphasise that our electronic voting machines are completely tamper-proof.

For services voters, electronic transmission of postal ballots was used for the first time.

What more needs to be done on seizures?

We will continue to apply enforcement mechanisms stringently, which involves income tax authorities, narcotics, etc relating to expenditure control. This time, seizures amounting to Rs 350 crore has been on account of our strict enforcement. 

Wherever individual inducements come up — “gifts” like saris, cycles, utensils, newspapers with slips etc — the existing law is applied. But the problem is that bribery is a non-cognisable offence. We can see that the person is bribing. But you cannot arrest him. So he bribes and goes away with a big smile saying, “okay, I will face action in due course of time”. So we feel handicapped — because there is no immediate deterrence. We have moved to make bribery a cognisable offence. If we catch somebody giving cash, liquor or anything else to voters to vote in a particular way, the person is arrested on the spot.

I have taken the matter up with the Ministry of Home Affairs, which has told us that this proposal is proposed to be made cognisable. It is part of a Bill under circulation to chief secretaries.

What is your view of simultaneous polls?

The Commission has heard nothing formally.

Is it feasible?

Some logistical support, etc is required. But before that, the Constitution has to be amended. And the Commission has heard nothing in this regard.

What is your view on the Budget proposals on electoral funding, especially measures relating to anonymous funding of political parties?

The measures in the Finance Bill are based on our recommendations. We had made several recommendations and these are the ones that have been accepted. It is a good beginning. It will lead to greater transparency. From Rs 20,000 cash contributions, now the limit for cash contributions has been reduced to Rs 2,000. This is also welcome. The ultimate goal is to become cashless. The other proposal is electoral bonds. It is part of the Finance Bill; we don’t know the details yet.