That the Election Commission is under the control of the Union Government is not just an opinion or observation; it is a fact. The appointment of the commission members is done only at the pleasure of the government, and to that end, the Modi government has made such provisions which bypass the Supreme Court's directive. It has appointed those who act arbitrarily and has also made a law that their actions cannot be questioned in court. The Commission is biased in everything from the electoral roll to the Rajya Sabha elections, which destroys the sanctity and free nature of elections. The latest example of this is what happened in the Rajya Sabha elections from Madhya Pradesh. There, elections were held to or three Rajya Sabha seats. Based on the strength of the assembly, it was certain that the BJP would get two seats and the Congress one. However, the incidents indicate that the Returning Officer colluded with the BJP to unfairly snatch the Congress seat. The Congress fielded Meenakshi Natarajan as its candidate. Despite knowing that if the polls were held it would win only two seats, the BJP fielded candidates for all three seats, and then argued that Meenakshi Natarajan's nomination should be rejected. The argument was that the nomination did not include information about a case against her. The returning officer did not even bother to check the legality of this, but rejected her nomination and declared all three BJP candidates as winners unopposed.
The collusion of the Election Commission is too obvious to hide — a blatant collusion that cannot be justified by law, the Commission’s own procedures, or common sense. The same Commission took a different stand for the BJP in Jharkhand. There, it gave time to the independent candidate who contested for the Rajya Sabha with BJP support to correct the errors in his nomination and submit the supporting documents. Moreover, the allegation that information about a case was concealed in Meenakshi Natarajan’s nomination is false. There is no case against her. The complaint filed by a woman leader against a Congress leader in Telangana had alleged that Meenakshi, who was in charge of the AICC of that state, did not take action. Firstly, Meenakshi was not in charge of the AICC in 2022 when the incident allegedly took place. Secondly, Meenakshi is not a defendant in the case. Before deciding on the reference in the private case, the court only sent notices as per the rules to all those named in the case. That does not mean that they are or will become defendants. Only cases in which charge sheets have been prepared, or convictions made have to be disclosed under Section 33A(1) of the Representation of the People Act (1951). The reason for rejecting the nomination paper would not be that the Commission is not aware of the law, but rather to unfairly create seats for the BJP.
When the Election Commission neglects its duty by institutionalising bias, it is the judiciary that is left as the guardian of democracy. Often, even that guardian is not vigilant enough. The Supreme Court's failure to intervene to correct the injustice against Meenakshi raises concerns. The court dismissed Meenakshi's petition, citing Article 329 of the Constitution — and directed that the Commission itself be approached as an election case. However, the Supreme Court has pointed out in the Maohinder Singh Gill case (1977) that this section cannot be used to hide a manifest injustice. Moreover, Article 142 gives the court full power to administer justice by considering the facts of a particular case. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has now placed procedure above justice. The court has the responsibility to protect democracy before the entire electoral system turns into a totalitarian one. Democracy does not come about through procedure alone. It is good to remember that in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, democracy existed in procedure and technique. India needs the soul of democracy, not the skeleton. Our country deserves it.