Another paralysis

Routine decisions need not be sent to Election Commission

The Election Commission of India has, in the past, done a commendable job trying to ensure that governments in power do not abuse their privileges at election time. An important part of its arsenal of powers to ensure this is the model code of conduct, which empowers it to review decisions being taken by a government that is about to go to the polls to see if they are being made with a view to unduly influencing voters. This is a power of considerable scope, and should be used wisely and well. Bureaucrats in the government, too, should have the good sense to submit for review only those decisions that are out of the ordinary - not those that represent the normal course of administration.

Sadly, several recent requests for review by the government seem to fly in the face of this logic. Recently, it was reported that the Election Commission permitted the government to go ahead with the appointment of a new chief of naval staff. Admiral D K Joshi had resigned following a spate of naval accidents. The defence ministry should have acted immediately to find a replacement, especially so that morale in the service did not suffer. However, since the model code of conduct was in operation, it decided to ask the Election Commission first. There is no reason to suppose that the decision to begin the hunt for a navy chief would in any way affect the prospects of the incumbent party - so why did it have to be cleared by the Commission?

Some other recent decisions could be argued both ways. The decision to hand out new bank licences, for example, was taken a long time ago; the committee to decide the beneficiaries was set up some time ago, as well. But the actual awarding of the licences has been delayed. The rise in natural gas prices to be paid to concessionaires in the Krishna-Godavari Basin, including Reliance Industries Limited was, also, a decision that had been known for a long time. It is in itself, as this paper has argued, a misguided decision; but, if anything, it hurts - not helps - the government politically.

Most puzzling, perhaps, is the reported rethink by the government on the regular increase in diesel prices. The government long ago took the decision to raise the price of subsidised diesel by 50 paise a litre every month so as to gradually reduce the gap between the cost and the price at pumps. There should be no reason for the government to either submit this for review by the Election Commission or approach the Cabinet again to review its earlier decision on a phased decontrol of diesel prices, as has been reported in this newspaper. Nor should the Election Commission delay any decision on such a request if it were to come from the petroleum and natural gas ministry. Again, higher fuel prices hardly help an incumbent government with the voters; and seriousness about tackling the fiscal deficit even in times of political uncertainty is an important signal to send. The petroleum and natural gas ministry should not even be thinking of asking the Election Commission to review the decision. Sadly, the bureaucratic fear and paralysis that have characterised Delhi's decision making in the past years have been allowed to take over once again.