Nearly a third of MPs – 158 of 543 – in Parliament face criminal charges. Seventy-four of them face serious charges such as murder and abduction. Don’t you think India’s democracy is facing serious challenges?
Yes, India’s democracy is facing different challenges from time to time but I am optimistic that with some checks and balances these challenges can be effectively tackled and criminals can be kept away from the legislature.
Elections are due in many states next year. How much is the election commission geared up?
We are always ready for conducting elections. For those state assemblies which are due for elections, we start the preparations well ahead of time, generally a year in advance. We are already touring the states for reviewing the preparedness and issuing necessary instructions to the election machinery.
Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) have been banned in many countries, including Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland and Italy, and the list is getting longer. Why are we allowing them in India when there are so many controversies about them?
Our EVMs are fully tamper-proof. They are different from EVMs used in several other countries in many respects. Special technological features and administrative safeguards of our EVMs make them tamper-proof. These safeguards are:
a. Technical:
- The software used in these machines is burnt into the microcontroller chip so that it cannot be retrieved nor altered.
- The micro-controller chips themselves are either One Time Programmable (OTP) or Masked.
- There is no operating system in the machines. These are standalone machines. Therefore, there is no possibility of its data getting changed.
- Votes can be recorded only after the Presiding Officer enables the ballot on the Control Unit.
- Unless the ballot is enabled the machine becomes dead to any signal from outside.
b. Administrative:
Election Commission of India has put in place elaborate administrative safeguards making the electronic voting system of our country completely secure. These safeguards are implemented transparently with the involvement of political parties, candidates and their representatives. These administrative safeguards comprise of the following:
- Before every election a first level checking (FLC) is done for every EVM. Any malfunctioning EVM is kept separately and is not used in the election.
- Manufacturers certify at the time of FLC that all components in the EVM are original. After this, the plastic cabinet of Control Unit of the EVM is sealed using a “Pink Paper Seal”, which is signed by representatives of political parties. After this, the plastic cabinet of control unit of the EVMs cannot be opened and there is no access to any component of inside of EVMs.
- Subsequently, EVMs are further randomised twice in the presence of candidates or their representatives before they are distributed for use in individual polling stations. Such lists are provided to the political parties/candidates.
- Once the candidate setting is done the Ballot Unit of the EVM is also sealed with thread/Pink Paper seals so that nobody has access to the inside of the Ballot Unit too.
- On the polling day, after the mock poll is over, another thread seal and green paper seals are put on the EVM to block access to all buttons on the EVM, except those, which are used for the conduct of poll. These paper seals and thread seals are allowed to be signed by the polling agents. After the poll is over, the presiding officer presses the “Close” button on the EVM. Thereafter, no votes can be polled in the EVM.
- After this, the entire EVM is sealed. Candidates and their agents are allowed to put their signatures on the seals, which they can check for the intactness of the seal before counting.
- In addition to this, the strong rooms where EVMs are stored are also sealed and watched round the clock. The candidates and their representatives are allowed to put their own seals on the strong rooms. They are also allowed to keep a watch on the strong room.
Critics of the EVMs feel that the risk of wholesale rigging inherent, howsoever small, cannot be accepted in a democracy where the stakes in winning elections are so high. What is your take?
The Commission had thrown open an offer for anyone who could come to Commission and tamper the EVM brought from 10 different states in August, 2009. But nobody was able to tamper with or prove such vulnerabilities of EVM before the Commission except making claims in this regard. On 4th October, 2010, the Commission had an all party meeting where the parties had appreciated the measures adopted by the Commission and the fact that the EVMs have been effectively used in India. However, the parties suggested the incorporating of a Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) in the EVM for further satisfaction of voters. Based on the suggestion, the Commission referred the matter to the Technical Expert Committee for examination. The Expert Committee looked into the issue and had elaborate discussion with the party representatives and suggested a prototype for field trial. Recently, we have conducted field trial of VVPAT system at five locations having extreme environmental condition like Leh (Ladakh in Jammu & Kashmir), Jaisalmer (in Rajasthan), Cherrapunjee (in Meghalaya), Thiruvananthapuram (in Kerala) and in Delhi. We are going through the findings.
In India whistleblowers are punished rather than being applauded. For instance last year Hari K Prasad, the technical coordinator of VeTA (Citizens for Verifiability, Transparency and Accountability in Elections) was arrested because he used an EVM to prove that it can be easily hacked and tampered. What is your opinion?
It may be mentioned here that Mr. Hari Prasad has visited the office of Election Commission of India several times. The Commission has always given him a patient hearing, and has assured him that the Commission will consider all his suggestions for any improvement with an open mind. At his request, EVMs were allowed to be examined by him in the Commission’s headquarters. He had also been given several opportunities to demonstrate alleged tamper-prone qualities in ECI-EVMs. Nobody, including Mr Hari Prasad has been able to demonstrate such qualities of ECI-EVMs. The EVM shown by Mr. Hari Prasad in a TV program was found missing from one EVM warehouse of Mumbai where it was stored. The District Collector, who is lawful custodian of EVM, found on enquiry that Mr. Hari Prasad was having unauthorised possession of the said EVM and hence filed a complaint criminal proceedings against him with the concerned Police authorities. The law had to take its own course. The Commission has no role on the arrest of Mr. Hari Prasad.
What are the challenges before the election commission?
The magnitude of Indian electorate, about 730 million with its diversity and complexity is a challenging factor at any time. To facilitate the fullest voluntary participation of this population in the electoral process is a real task to handle.
Large number of electors, mainly the urban population, the youth and women at many places do not exercise their franchise because of information, motivation or facilitation gaps. Commission is taking up Systematic Voter Education and Electoral Participation measures to address these problems. The role of unaccounted money in elections is a menace which undermines the sanctity of the whole electoral system. The political parties collect funds from companies and business houses, and then use this money to influence the voter to vote in their favour. The problem of paid news is result of this money power, which influences the print and electronic media, vitiating the level playing field, a prerequisite for free and fair election. Surrogate advertisements, publicity through politically aligned channels are related problems. There is an urgent need for setting up a robust mechanism for regular checking of the accounts maintained by the political parties and effective regulations for the media, which the Commission is doing in right earnest.
What according to you are the strength and weakness of India’s electoral system?
Adult franchise without gender bias is biggest strength of our electoral system. This electoral system has strengthened the roots of democracy in India despite facing many challenges. Another big strength of the Commission is that it is a Constitutional authority, fully autonomous insulated from any pulls or pressure by the government in power. Another strength of the institution is enforcement of model code of conduct during elections to ensure a level playing field for all contestants without any additional benefit for the ruling party. The unique feature of this code is that it is a code evolved by consensus of all political parties and not a legal document but has the legal backing of the judiciary and is abided by all during the period of election.
There are few areas in which improvements are necessary. Though we have overcome muscle power to a great extent, yet use of excessive money and more so the unaccounted money/ black money during elections has been a major threat and despite taking strict measures to combat this menace, we have not been able to control it effectively. Apathy towards exercising franchise, especially among urban population, remains a weakness of our system, which we are trying to overcome through our various awareness programmes. Another problem, which is perhaps being faced across the globe, is to elicit electoral participation of the youth.
The role of unaccounted money being used in the political elections is big problem. Any specials measures are being taken to check the menace.
Yes, I agree, as it gives undue advantage to those who have enough money and even more advantage to those who have unaccounted money at their disposal thereby vitiating the level playing field. The Commission has set up an Expenditure Monitoring Division under a senior officer from Revenue Department to assist in policy making and to monitor election expenditure of the candidate and political parties. We have issued directions to Political Parties and candidates to make all payments of election expenses by cheque and the Party functionaries not to carry cash during the election process. Commission will be uncompromising on this. The candidates have to open a separate bank account for their election expenses and also to maintain a register for receipts and payments in Bank Register and Cash Register respectively. Every candidate’s election expenses is monitored by various teams like video surveillance team, video viewing team and accounting team for maintaining shadow observation register accompanied by folder of evidence. Surveillance teams and flying squads are set up under the jurisdiction of each police station to keep vigil on movement of cash, liquor, or any suspicious item meant for distribution among the electors. During elections, banks are asked to report any suspicious withdrawal of cash from any bank account of any individual, which will be closely monitored by the election machinery and the Income tax Department. Services of Investigation Directorate of Income Tax are requisitioned to keep vigil over movement of large amount of cash through airports, important railway stations, hotels, farm houses, financial brokers, pawn brokers, cash couriers and also on cross border movements. These measures were strictly followed in the just concluded Assembly elections held in Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Puducherry.
How can we contain the use of muscle power in the elections?
The use of muscle power has been effectively controlled and it is no longer used in elections. This has been checked by appointing observers, from outside the state, vulnerability mapping to prevent intimidation of vulnerable section of the society, live web casting of polling from critical polling stations, videography of all major events and deployment of Central Police Forces etc.
What electoral reforms would you like to see in our system?
The Election Commission has been at the forefront of initiating efforts to strengthen the electoral system. I would like to see the following major reforms in our electoral system:-
- De-Criminalisation of politics – Under the present law, there is a disqualification against a person convicted by the Court. But, during the pendency of the trial, there is no bar against contesting election. The Commission has been suggesting that there should be a disqualification even during pendency of trial provided the offence is punishable by imprisonment of 5 years or more and the Court has framed charges. This proposal if accepted and the law amended suitably will address the issue of criminalisation of politics to a large extent
- Bring radical changes in the provisions regarding receipts of funds by political parties and the manner in which such funds are spent by them so as to provide for complete transparency in the matter of source of income and spending on elections by the political parties. The accounts of political parties should be got audited by the Auditors approved by the CAG. The audited accounts should then be placed in public domain.
- “Paid News” in connection with elections should be listed in the category of the electoral offences, with stringent punishment. The Commission has suggested a provision for punishment by minimum of two years’ imprisonment.
- The candidates are required to disclose their criminal antecedents and their assets and liabilities in an affidavit when they file their nomination. In order to ensure proper compliance with the disclosure requirement, the punishment for suppressing information or for giving false information should be more stringent. The Commission has recommended that Section125A be amended such that there is more stringent punishment of minimum two years imprisonment for concealing or providing wrong information in the affidavits.
- Advertisements of achievements by ministries/ departments should be prohibited during the period of six months before the date on which the term of the House (Lok Sabha or Legislative Assembly as the case may be) is due to expire.
- There should be complete prohibition on campaign during the last 48 hours before the close of poll. At present the ban is not applicable to campaigning through print media and also the candidates making house to house contact with the electors. The house-to-house visits during this period of very crucial and provides an opportunity for indulging in corrupt practice of bribing the voters with cash. I want that the Commission’s recommendation that Section 126 banning any type of campaign should apply to print media as well and house-to-house visits by candidates/supporters should be specifically prohibited during the said 48 hour period.
These are just some of the many recommendations for electoral reforms made by the Commission.
There are demands for the political parties to enhance existing ceiling on election expenses ceiling for the various legislative bodies. What do you think?
The Govt. of India has already enhanced the ceiling of election expenses from Rs10 lakh to Rs16 lakh for an assembly constituency and from Rs 25 lakh to Rs.40 lakh for a parliamentary constituency, in February, 2011. This ceiling may be further rationalized in due course of time.
What can be done to eliminate criminals whose ultimate aim is to grab national power through financing political parties?
Ideally speaking people with criminal background should be prevented from contesting elections. But that is not happening. Why? What can be done about it?
The foremost reform is to prevent persons with criminal background from becoming legislators. The other important reforms should be: empowerment of the Commission to issue guidelines regulating registration and de-registration of political parties, making ‘paid news’ an electoral offence, increasing the period of punishment for electoral offences, punishment for false affidavit by candidates along with nomination.
For de-criminalisation of politics, the Commission has sent proposal to the government for disqualifying a person against whom charges have been framed by a court for an offence punishable by imprisonment of five years or more from contesting election. Recently, the Commission, in response to a Bill drafted by the government to prevent persons against whom charges concerning heinous offences like murder, rape, dacoity, kidnapping, sedition, etc. have been framed by a Court, from entering election fray we have proposed inclusion of a few more serious offences that are mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 8 of R.P. Act, 1951.
