"There is no question of a mili bhagat (collusion)... as I have mentioned, several factors were considered by the commission before deciding on the election dates (of Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat)," Chief Election Commissioner A K Joti told reporters.
He was asked about allegations by the opposition that there was a tacit understanding between the EC and the government on Gujarat election dates.
"No, I don't think it was a bad decision," he said.
The question-answer session which followed the announcement of Gujarat poll dates was dominated by queries related to the EC announcing the poll schedule for the two states separately.
When his comments were sought on the statements of some of the former CECs that the EC should not have delayed Gujarat poll date announcement, Joti said he would not like to say anything on the opinion of his predecessors.
Joti also said that though the poll schedule of the two states were announced together in 2012, in the past the two states had elections on different dates.
"Nothing is written on stone. But there are laws," he said and referred to the election law.
He said several political parties and the state administration had urged the EC to hold Himachal Pradesh elections before November 15 as harsh winter and snowfall in at least three districts create problems for the voting process.
He said the Gujarat chief secretary had written to the EC on two occasions -- September 25 and October 2 -- requesting not to announce polls as the state was working to rehabilitate people affected by July floods.
He said between 25 September and October 22, the flood relief work has progressed and long-term measures were being undertaken in the state.
He also gave out figures on the losses incurred by the state, relief funds disbursed and amount ending distribution.
He said EC had not announced poll schedule in Tamil Nadu in 2016 after floods as school and university examination schedule had already gone haywire.
The CEC said while the Gujarat and Himachal polls were announced together in 2012, their schedules were different. He also pointed out that the two states had no similarities in geography or weather patterns.
He said this would effectively mean that the model code would be in place for 46 days.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
