The Election Commission, tasked with overseeing the conduct of elections and ensuring their integrity, has long been viewed as a cornerstone of India’s democratic system. However, Chidambaram’s assertion underscores the growing concern over the expanding role of the ECI, particularly when it comes to addressing grievances and petitions which, in his view, could be better addressed by judicial institutions.
Chidambaram's criticism stems from what he perceives as an encroachment on the judicial domain by an administrative body. He made these comments following a series of high-profile cases where the ECI had acted upon complaints and petitions, often making determinations that many legal experts argue should be left to the judiciary. Chidambaram contends that the ECI should focus solely on ensuring the process of elections is transparent, equitable, and conducted in adherence with the law, rather than acting as a quasi-judicial body.
Election law experts have weighed in on the matter, noting that the Commission has historically had a significant role in determining the fairness of elections. For instance, in cases involving the registration of political parties, violations of the model code of conduct, and the scrutiny of election expenditures, the ECI has intervened with significant authority. These interventions, while seen as necessary to maintain election integrity, have sometimes led to debates regarding the limits of the Commission’s power.
The Election Commission has been involved in investigating instances of election malpractices, sometimes even without judicial intervention. The ECI’s decision to take immediate action, including ordering re-polls or imposing fines, has drawn both praise for its proactive stance and criticism for overstepping its bounds.
Chidambaram’s criticism is also being seen in the context of broader concerns regarding the growing centralisation of power. Opposition leaders, including Chidambaram, have voiced concerns about the autonomy of institutions such as the Election Commission, especially in light of perceived political pressures. They argue that the Commission must remain independent from political influence to effectively perform its duties.
Political observers point to the significant role the Election Commission has played in ensuring electoral fairness during pivotal elections. For instance, during the 2019 general elections, the ECI was instrumental in investigating complaints related to the misuse of social media platforms by political parties and ensuring that campaigns adhered to the prescribed regulations. While these actions were broadly appreciated for their commitment to electoral fairness, questions continue to arise about the Commission’s scope in dealing with individual complaints and petitions.
Critics argue that the ECI’s expanded powers could lead to a potential overreach, where it might not only regulate the election process but also act as an arbiter of disputes that should fall within the judicial purview. Chidambaram’s statement seems to reflect a broader unease with what some perceive as the blurring of boundaries between administrative functions and the judicial process.
The political landscape is also changing rapidly, with growing reliance on digital platforms for campaigning and the dissemination of information. This shift has introduced new challenges for the Election Commission, which now has to manage electoral fairness not just at the polling booth but across a vast digital ecosystem. These new challenges have led to calls for greater clarity in the ECI's role and its ability to address complaints, particularly when the issues are complex or contentious.
In contrast, the Commission has defended its actions, arguing that it has the necessary authority to safeguard the integrity of the electoral process. By addressing petitions and complaints related to electoral malpractices, the ECI claims it upholds its constitutional mandate to ensure that elections are free from manipulation and irregularities.