It is always the governments temptation to keep nibbling away at the ECs powers

S Y Quraishi: Indias elections are the pride of India. Go anywhere in the world and the one word they know about India is democracy. With 750 million voters,we are larger than all 50 countries of Europe and 20 countries of South and Central America put together. This is the scale of our election,yet by lunchtime,everyone knows the results. As a nation,we seem to suffer from low self-esteem,as if we are a rotten nation of corrupt and inefficient people. I think there is still a lot to be happy about. During elections,up to 11 million people are deployed to conduct the election,all free from government control. We are one of the few countries where bureaucrats alone conduct elections,plan meticulously,monitor vigorously,delegate generously and act impartially. For 99.9 per cent of all problems,we have a solution,otherwise,we find one.

Vandita Mishra: The issue of your sending a letter to Salman Khurshid during the UP election campaign became quite loud,to the point of confrontation.

S Y Quraishi: There are two things which happened in the case of the Law Minister. One was his violation of the model code of conduct when he announced reservation for minorities. Section 7 in the model code is dedicated to the government in power. Ministers,in particular,are barred from any announcement to seduce the voters. His announcement amounted to a violation of the model code so we gave him a notice. He replied and contested it,which was probably a mistake. Had he explained it or assured us it would not happen again,the matter would have been settled. But he wanted a personal hearing. After going through the entire process,we concluded that there was a violation. Under the model code,the maximum punishment is censure,which we did,and advice or warning that he should not do it again. Thats what we did. Then he made an announcement that EC or no EC,he would still do it. That was a challenge to EC. Here was a Law Minister,who is supposed to uphold the Constitution,questioning a constitutional body which he should be upholding. Thats when we wrote to the President for any action she deemed fit. Mr Khurshid then tendered an apology and we accepted it. To this day,we get hate mails that we let him off easily,although we have given him the maximum censure: for the first time in 60 years of Indias history,the Law Minister was censured. What more do people expect?

Maneesh Chhibber: One gets the impression that the law ministry under Salman Khurshid has been trying to rein in EC and assert its administrative control over it.

S Y Quraishi: There was a time when EC almost functioned as a department of the law ministry. That has changed and its about time people in the law ministry realised that. Every institution has a nodal ministry but a nodal ministry in our case does not mean a controlling ministry by any means. EC is fiercely autonomous and that is the foundation laid by the Constitution.

M K Venu: What about funding of EC? If you want to beef up election infrastructure,what is the procedure?

S Y Quraishi: We send our propsoals to the law ministry. One of our reform proposals is that our budget should be charged to the Consolidated Fund of India (CFI),not voted for in Parliament. CAGs budget doesnt come that way,Supreme Courts budget comes from CFI,even UPSCs and CVCs.Why is it taking the government so long to appreciate such a simple thing? To be fair,the government and the law ministry never opposed our budget proposals though.

Swaraj Thapa: You recommended the cancellation of Rajya Sabha elections in Jharkhand. Rajya Sabha members say it is unfair that in Lok Sabha you have a lot of checks and balances,but in the Rajya Sabha you dont have any. Are there any steps for this?

S Y Quraishi: Although money is a problem in all elections,we have been focusing more on Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha elections. By-elections deserve five times more attention because a single by-election sees the entire state government machinery unleashed. About Rajya Sabha elections,we had been hearing all kinds of use of money power but could do nothing. We can act only when there is actionable evidence. In this case,we alerted our entire enforcement machinery. On the morning of poll day in Jharkhand,we seized a car and found Rs 2.15 crore. The car belonged to the brother of the candidate. Since voting was almost over,we stopped the counting. There was a dilemma for us: to countermand the poll or countermand the election. Countermanding the poll means we hold the same poll a few days later. But then,the same people who had pocketed the money would be there doing the same thing. It would not have changed anything. So we countermanded the election. The decision was challenged in the Jharkhand High Court. The two writs filed were dismissed by the court. One was filed by this candidate,other was by a PIL. The Jharkhand High Court imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh. The court said that it was for the first time in the history of independent India that such action had been taken. This judgment has strengthened our hand. It will help clean up the system.

Unni Rajen Shanker: What happens to the cash you seize?

S Y Quraishi: The liquor seized is destroyed. The cash is deposited in the Treasury. We have set up an expenditure monitoring division with a commissioner from Income Tax to be the director-general. People are mortally scared of carrying money as chances of them being caught are almost 90 per cent.

Bibekanand Biswas: Many western nations have rejected electronic voting machines (EVMs). In India,we have found them very satisfactory.

S Y Quraishi: Our EVMs are 100 per cent dependable and reliable. We have used them since 1998 with great success. The fact that 500 million votes are counted and results are announced by lunchtime is due to the EVMs. Often the German Supreme Court is cited as having outlawed EVMs. But it was not a rejection of the technology,but a legal lacuna. What the German SC did,our Supreme Court had done 25 years before. So we brought in a law to bridge the legal deficiency. It is a normal tendency for some losers to blame something. So the poor EVM was the easiest flogging horse.With the ruling party or the incumbent losing elections regularly,what can be a better proof of the dependability of the EVM? Now,we are working on transparency. We have asked companies to develop a paper trail and a printing machine.

Shyamlal Yadav: Before retirement,will you suggest something regarding the appointment of CECs like some of your predecessors did?

S Y Quraishi: Mr N Gopalaswamy and Mr BB Tandon had suggested that our appointment procedure should be more transparent. Instead of the government alone nominating,it should be a collegium. When we are attacked as stooges of the party that appointed us,it is annoying. But if we have the stamp of approval from the collegium consisting of the Leader of the Opposition,the Chief Justice of India,etc.,nobody would raise a finger. Besides,we seek two safeguards: One,that the promotion of the seniormost EC as CEC be automatic. Why should the two election commissioners feel they are on probation? Second,the removal process. Why is the protection against removal available to the CEC alone? The three of us are equal. The protection was meant for the institution,not for an individual. Why is the government taking 20 years to pass this?

D K Singh: Team Anna thinks our elected representatives are thieves and rapists. What is your view?

S Y Quraishi: I think this is a very harsh and dangerous statement. To paint every politician black is dangerous. You cant love democracy and hate politicians. Can you think of a democracy without politicians? Compare us with our neighbours who became independent at the same time. Where are they and where are we? The difference is good political leadership. So to give a bad name to the entire system is dangerous and counter-productive. If only we could keep the tainted out,the credibility will improve.

Aasdhya Chawla (student,Springdales School,Pusa Road): Whenever you talk about a job application for bureaucrats or for heads of institutions,the first thing that is considered is whether they have any criminal cases pending against them. But 162 out of the 543 Lok Sabha members have criminal chargesheets against them. Why are parliamentarians exempt from this deciding factor?

S Y Quraishi: We have been demanding for the last 18 years that people against whom there are serious cases pending should be debarred from contesting elections. Two years ago,we called a meeting of all political parties on four issues,one was this. They unanimously agreed to disagree with us! Their objection: there can be false cases on political grounds. We proposed three safeguardsone,that the case should be only for heinous offences like kidnapping,murder,dacoity,rape,moral turpitude which carry imprisonment of more than five years. Second,the case should have been filed six months before the elections so that you have time for corrective action. Third,a court should have framed the charges. Then we are reminded that the law of the land is that one is innocent till convicted. I have been asking a counter-question: in Indian jails,we have four lakh prisoners,2,68,000 of whom are under trial,which means they have not been convicted. But you have taken away four of their fundamental rightsliberty,right to movement,freedom of occupation and right to dignity. The right to contest is not a fundamental right.

D K Singh: Salman Khurshid virtually defied the EC,even Beni Prasad Verma tried to defy it. In Jharkhand,the candidate went to court but the court upheld the decision of the EC. Between the executive and the judiciary,who has helped the EC the most?

S Y Quraishi: Of course,the judiciary,particularly the Supreme Court,which has been our guardian angel. But for the Supreme Courts interpretation of various Acts and rules,we would have been swallowed a long time ago. It is always a governments temptation to keep nibbling away at ECs powers.

Even the executive has helped by enacting laws giving us power. More importantly,the model code of conduct is an extremely important instrument for free and fair elections. Though it is not a law,but a voluntary code,the compliance to it is more than to any law of the land. So let us be fair to the political executive. However,for 22 reform proposals which are pending for long,we do expect a little more political will. To be fair,for the first time in 60 years,Mr Veerappa Moily (then law minister) came to EC to discuss reforms twice. We agreed on seven regional consultations across the country,which we did jointly. The eighth was to be a national consultation in Delhi a year ago. That did not happen. Then,Mr Salman Khurshid came to EC. He assured us that he would bring in the electoral reform Bill in the winter session of Parliament but that session was preoccupied with the Lokpal Bill. I told Mr Anna Hazare in a lighter vein when he came to meet us that his movement has unwittingly derailed our reforms! We are still hoping the Bill will come in the Budget session. I will be writing to the Prime Minister reminding him that this Bill of great national concern is pending.

D K Singh: When did Anna Hazare visit you?

S Y Quraishi: Mr Anna Hazare had come about a month ago and before that his entire team had come without him. Some of them also individually visited us. I have said this before: while Lokpal will serve a very useful purpose,it will only identify some very corrupt people at the top. We want to stop them at the gate itself. Dont allow criminals to come into the legislature. So priority should be given to electoral reforms.

D K Singh: Did you differ on anything?

S Y Quraishi: Two things. One,we did not agree with their demand for right to recall. We cannot destabilise the country. If some people sign a petition that this MLA or MP is not doing a good job,throw him out,how many signatures will be required to throw him out? If four lakh people choose an MP,is it right for a few thousand to oust him? How can we verify 50,000 or 1 lakh signatures? And how many elections do people have to suffer? Elections are not held in New Delhi alone,they are held all over the country,including some very difficult Maoist or extremist areas. And millions of staff are involved. What will happen if you keep recalling? As for the right to reject,I had first questioned it but later softened my stand. My reason for rejecting the right to reject was the samehow many elections do you want? If people keep filling in none of the above,we will have to have more elections. But Annas team said this will be a good deterrent since parties will not put up criminals or spend crores. I accept the usefulness of this idea. That is a very good point. On that basis alone, this needs to be considered.

Vandita Mishra: With the benefit of hindsight do you feel that EC could have done things a little differently? For instance,your decision on the covering of Mayawati statues and maybe the videographing of movements of candidates?

S Y Quraishi: What we did with covering of elephants was the right thing to be done. It had disturbed the level playing field. The instructions are that if there is a photograph of the prime minister or any chief minister on a public building,that photograph has to be removed. What cannot be removed,must be covered. Just because a statue is big,there could not have been on exemption. Allahabad HC upheld our order. Videographing candidates was a really effective deterrent against crime and muscle power.

Transcribed by Jayant Sriram and Dipankar Ghose