Political campaigning deadline: The silent period has become redundant

The two-week campaign deadline is in place to address logistical issue, which is to enable ECI personnel to track whether parties or candidates bribing voters

The Election Commission of India (ECI), as mandated by the Representation of the People Act, imposes a specific deadline on political campaigning ahead of any election it supervises. Under the rules, the duration of an election campaign is two weeks after the announcement of the final list of candidates and campaigning must stop 48 hours before voting ends. In the age of the internet and artificial intelligence, this timetable may have outlived its utility. The two-week campaign deadline is in place to address a logistical issue, which is to enable ECI personnel to track whether parties or candidates are bribing voters, appealing to them in the name of caste or religion, and using government resources for campaigning. But with election schedules announced way ahead, it is — and has been — easy for politicians to observe these three strictures in the breach anytime before the deadline. Then there are grey areas, such as whether events like the Union Budget should be rescheduled to adjust to poll timetables. The outlook here has been varied.

 

In 2012, the United Progressive Alliance government had accepted the Opposition demand to postpone the Budget on account of five Assembly elections — Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Manipur, and Goa — that were due between mid-February and early March. The presentation of the Budget was shifted from its (then) usual timetable of the last day of February to March 16. In 2017, the National Democratic Alliance government declined to consider a similar Opposition demand, and the Supreme Court struck down public interest litigation (PIL) on grounds that there was no evidence that the Budget would influence the electorate, nor could the exercise be dependent on state polls, which occur frequently. As this example shows, campaigning principles are dependent on the forbearance and ethical perceptions of the parties concerned. Valid questions, however, may be raised over the utility of a 48-hour cooling-off period ahead of voting day when rallies and media appearances (including on the internet, radio, television, and print) are banned to ostensibly enable a free environment that allows voters to analyse their choices. Several countries observe a pre-poll silence period of 24-48 hours. Most polling exercises in these countries are, however, much smaller and mostly conducted in a day. In India, with its sprawling and challenging geography and ever expanding electorate, the exercise has become increasingly complex.

 

One trend is the frequency of prolonged phase-wise elections — in 2024, for instance, voting for the Lok Sabha covered seven phases and one and a half months, with some states having multiple phases — making local silent periods moot. This scheduling disproportionately benefits large national parties with deep pockets, enabling them to stay in campaign mode in different parts of the country even if the silent period is being observed in some parts. Second, the proliferation of social media, with seemingly independent political influencers, remains outside the purview of the ban and increasingly makes a mockery of it. Third, several parties publish prominent advertisements in influential media on polling day. It is unclear how this practice does not constitute campaigning. The increasing de facto breach of the silent period has all but nullified its efficacy. It may be more sensible to switch to the practice in the United States, where a silent period is considered a breach of free speech and direct campaigning is prohibited only around polling booths on voting day.