Comment: Revision in the Election Code of Conduct. (2008, 20 Marks)
The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is a consensual set of norms binding parties, candidates and governments from the day an election schedule is announced. It has no statutory force. It draws its authority from the Election Commission’s plenary power under Article 324 and from party consensus, and it has survived by being revised as electoral politics changed. The live questions are what the next revision should cover and whether it should become law.
A code built by revision
| Stage | Revision |
|---|---|
| 1960 | A code drawn up by the Kerala administration for the assembly election |
| 1968 | The ECI issued a “Minimum Code of Conduct” nationally for the mid-term polls |
| 1979 | A section on the party in power barred the misuse of official machinery, new schemes and transfers |
| 1991 | T. N. Seshan made it enforceable in practice: violations brought public censure and transfers of officials |
| 2001 | A settlement before the Supreme Court fixed the Code’s start at the announcement of the schedule |
| 2014 | After S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013), manifesto guidelines (Part VIII) required promises to be consistent with the Constitution and their rationale explained |
| 2019 | A Voluntary Code of Ethics for social media platforms (through the IAMAI); the silence period of s.126 RPA was extended online |
| 2018–24 | The cVIGIL app: in 2024 it received about 4.24 lakh complaints, 89% resolved within 100 minutes |
Ujjwal Kumar Singh reads the MCC as a blend of the Commission’s moral force and supplementary legality.
Why further revision is needed
- Hate speech by star campaigners. On 25 April 2024 the ECI issued notices to the party presidents J. P. Nadda and Mallikarjun Kharge over their star campaigners’ speeches, invoking s.77 RPA. Critics noted that Narendra Modi went unnamed; brief campaign bans (2019) remain its heaviest weapon.
- Pre-emptive welfare. The Code bites only after the announcement. Cash transfers timed just before it, such as Bihar’s ₹10,000 transfers to women in 2025, fall outside it.
- Manifesto freebies. In 2022 the ECI proposed that parties disclose how they would finance their promises. The proposal has not been adopted.
- Synthetic media. Deepfakes outpace a takedown model built around a 48-hour silence period.
- Governance freeze. Staggered polls keep the Code in force much of the year, feeding the One Nation One Election case.
- Perceived asymmetry. Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa‘s unrecorded dissents in 2019 raised the demand for published minority opinions and time-bound, reasoned orders.
Should revision mean legislation?
| For statutory backing | Against |
|---|---|
| The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice (2013) recommended placing the MCC in the RPA 1951 | The ECI opposes it, because a judicial process would outlast the campaign; a censure within hours bites, a verdict after the result does not |
| Defined offences reduce selective enforcement | Codification invites legalistic evasion and interim stays |
| Graded sanctions, including disqualification, instead of mere censure | Much of the Code already overlaps with penal law and s.123 RPA corrupt practices |
A better route
- Selective legalisation: make paid news, false affidavits and the misuse of official machinery offences, and leave the rest of the Code to the Commission’s speed.
- Procedural revision: fixed timelines, reasoned orders, recorded dissents, and extending the Code to government advertising and to transfers in a defined period before the announcement.
- Institutional trust: the Code’s moral authority depends on the Commission’s independence, strained by the 2023 appointment law.
Conclusion
The MCC is a rare Indian case of norm-based regulation outperforming law. It succeeded through consensual revision and quick enforcement. The next revision should update its content, covering digital campaigning, welfare timing and manifesto costing, and make its procedure transparent. It should not convert the whole Code into litigable statute, which would blunt the speed that is its only sanction.