Boundaries of MCC

When Germany was divided, an East Germany citizen one day illegally crossed the border and entered West Germany in anticipation of enjoying greater freedom. Confident of getting freedom, the person swinging his hand stick started wandering in the streets at will. Incidentally, the stick hit the nose of a person who in turn complained in the police station against the East Germany citizen. The issue was taken to court where the Judge questioned him about reasons for hitting the plaintiff. His reply was that he got freedom immediately on entering West Germany and hence rotated the stick freely. The Judge observed that his "freedom starts where others' nose ends". This is exactly how the Election Model Code of Conduct (MCC) unfortunately is! No one has any clue where, when and how it begins and then ceases. In an unending and incessant process of Indian Electoral System that goes on for months, the question often asked is how could the democratically elected governments function with MCC?

In the recent past, several political leaders as well as CMs have raised their eyebrows and objected to the continuance of MCC for long. Their objection is that in the name of MCC, the Election Commission (EC) performs the way it likes. MCC is meant for a limited period beginning with the announcement of schedule till the end of elections but certainly not far beyond that. The Indian electoral process is a long-drawn affair. The result is announced sometimes months after the elections are held. If there are restrictions on the government, CM, his cabinet colleagues and officers about what can be done and what can't even after the elections are completed then it may be inappropriate. We often see the issuance of notices to CMs and others on alleged violations during electioneering like the one served on Telangana CM.

It may be inappropriate on EC's part to impose sanctions on the government and CMs for conducting official review meetings, though the elections have already been concluded. For instance, in states like Telangana, AP and Odisha, strict adherence to MCC is not conducive to democratic functioning. Is it necessary for Odisha CM to obtain permission from EC to review relief measures in the context of cyclone Fani? Is he bound by MCC to call for a cabinet meeting? In a democratic setup, it amounts to fault if reviews and cabinet meetings are not held in such a situation. As the election process is over, there is no possibility of influencing the voter and hence it is not wrong to go for routine administrative measures including reviews and cabinet meetings.

Given this, the fundamental question is what an elected government can or can't do until the entire election process is completed. In fact, until the new government is formed after the general elections, the government in office shall be vested with all powers to discharge its responsibilities and constitutional obligations. Nowhere in the Constitution has any mention been made whether an elected government could be restricted on the pretext of MCC. Then why this limitation? In a democratic polity for continuity of good governance, for the welfare of weaker sections and downtrodden, for taking timely decisions, there shall not be any unnecessary limitations.

Parliamentary democracy presupposes frequent reviews by the government both at the official level and at CM level irrespective of MCC or not. It should be more of a self-discipline mode rather than imposing type. This was how originally it was conceived way back in 1960 in Kerala state, not by EC but through a consensus among political parties during Assembly Elections in the state. That was later adopted by EC and finally transformed into the present style.

It appears that, while the MCC is still in execution, AP CM Chandrababu Naidu decided to convene a Cabinet meeting and the process began with a note from CMO to the Chief Secretary. He seems to have expressed the opinion that, subject to permission from EC, the meeting can take place. Whether it is right on CM's part to have cabinet meeting while MCC is in operation is the subject of discussion among many IAS officers and others in the state.

In normal circumstances, CM has every right to decide on the date and time for a Cabinet meeting and CS has no option as Secretary to Cabinet to convene the same. Contrary to this, his right to have the same while MCC is in operation has become questionable since it requires EC's prior permission. Will it be appropriate for EC to reject the proposal of CM and CS? An interesting discussion has been going on that the decision of CM to have a cabinet meeting is leading to differences between CM and CS. In fact, it is also equally interesting as to what should be the manner of the relationship between a civil servant and minister or CM in a parliamentary democracy.

CM reviewing at different levels with officers is a normal thing and implementation of decisions taken in the reviews is the sole responsibility of civil servant. In policymaking, both the official and non-official share equal responsibility and if only there is a cordial relationship between both, there is every possibility for better governance. The Armstrong Memorandum of Great Britain details the roles, responsibilities and the manner of relationship between a minister and civil servant. India has adopted the parliamentary system of the UK. Civil Servants are accountable to Ministers – democratically elected government. They should be above political considerations. They should gain the confidence of the concerned minister and also the CM. Irrespective of their personal views they should advise the minister or CM as the case may be, and their entire experience shall be, placed at their disposal. Even when they differ, they should extend their advice and allow them to take the final decision which they have to implement.

Against this background and in the context of the AP developments, there exists a difference of opinion between the CM and CS at least as reported in a section of the press. CM, instead of sending a routine note through CMO to CS for convening a cabinet meeting would have spoken to him either over the phone or in person. CM should have discussed with CS about the pros and cons of convening cabinet meeting and should have sought his opinion. CM should have solicited CS's opinion as to how they could overcome the MCC stipulations. Similarly, instead of perseverance in his own style, CS should have met the CM and discussed the issue threadbare and offered his view. Still, there is enough time for these parleys before the cabinet meets if permitted by EC.

(The author is Chief PRO to Telangana CM. The views expressed are strictly personal)