Umpire’s decision is final
Election Commission of India (ECI) is the final umpire when it comes to
elections. In the past there were cases when political parties vehemently
disagreed with the ECI’s decisions and found fault with its directives. Some of
them merely voiced their dismay, while others accused the poll panel of lacking
in neutrality and being influenced by the ruling party of the day.
The Bharatiya Janata Party recently openly accused
the Chief Election Commissioner of timidity. By organising such protests, the (BJP) has set a precedent of sorts.
Voter turnout has improved considerably over the
years; people living in remote areas and from communities prevented in the past
from voting by feudal overlords are exercising their franchise without fear.
Carping at the referee for one unpalatable decision, even if it involves the
party’s iconic contestant, may not be justified. Parties should desist from unfair attacks
that might put undue pressure on election officials.
EC is a three member constitutional body with One
Chief Election Commissioner and Two Election Commissioner. We should first give
hats-off to EC for carrying out such a massive exercise. EC is the only body
where entire nation looks forward during elections.
Those who abuse the EC should be penalized like in
cricket where if a player protests against the umpire and accuses him of giving
glaringly atrocious decision against him, he is punished as per the cricket
rules.
It is true that the referee should be neutral and their
decisions taken should be above board. Both the major players, BJP and Congress
are part of the system, which has time and again played the same game of
blaming each other of influencing constitutional bodies when in power. Both
have conveniently ignored to set a system in place for independent functioning
of these bodies. It suits them to avoid accountability before rule of law and
befool people by making ridiculous noises of being victimised. People at large
are now aware of this and the civil society has been agitating for a credible
system to be set in place, where the politicians are made accountable to the
law and constitutional bodies. But the politicians obviously do not like all
this. Apart from making ridiculous noises to gain publicity, no worthwhile
attempt is ever made to streamline the system.
Of course, there should be instances where the
referee's decision is challenged. Otherwise there is no balance. This is how a
system remains true to its aim. If
a referee, appointed by one team of the players, is biased and deliberately
acting against the other side of players, should the referee be not questioned?
Healthy criticisms are welcomed, but breaching the well meaning limits and
terming its head "Timid" is a case of over criticism and demands
substantial evidences.
In country of 572 Lok Sabha seats, glitches often
occur and rarely serious setbacks could also be seen. This does not imply that candidates
should go gung ho against the election body, using same vocabulary as used for
opponents for this responsible institution. Especially for a party
"appearing" to win many seats, such behaviour is highly unfortunate
No comments:
Post a Comment