We cannot fight it out in the streets with political parties or their leaders: CEC Nasim Zaidi

Government is wanting to change political funding through electoral bonds etc. Has there been any movement on this?

The top most areas of electoral reforms is transparency in political finance. People have the right to know where the funds have come from and where are they going. It should be applicable at both candidate and party level so that people can later on see whether the donors had some interest or not. Few years ago, the Government had referred these matters to the law commission whose recommendation were again referred to some task force committee which, I believe, is also more or less did its job.

In the Income Tax Act, the political parties need not maintain documents, records, names etc of the contribution received by electoral bonds. If it is not to be disclosed to Income Tax, then our RP Act also got an amendment that political parties will not show their contribution to the Commission of amount received through the electoral bonds.

Our problem is that if parties resort to funding via electoral bonds, and if it does not show up in the contribution report, we are not able to display it on our website. Thus, people won't get to know. It introduces a lot of opaqueness. The big donors apparently don't want to be known for being supporters of multiple parties. They fear that if the party they have supported does not win, they would face reprisals later.

Changes have been done in the Companies Act by removing the cap that barred a company from donating more than 7.5 per cent. Now companies can donate unlimited amount. In fact, they can work to entirely donate their profit to the political parties. Secondly, earlier, there used to be a clause that a Company has to be in profit for the last three years to donate. With that clause gone, even loss-making companies can be setup to contribute.

The changes in Companies Act, in our view, are going to be a big challenge. Commission has taken up this issue, asking the government to review the interest of transparency. Hopefully, they will take these things into account.

What is your take on the use of words and language in speeches that polarises the voters and have become a norm in elections after 2014?

Yes, even after 2014, political leaders indulged in provoking passions, creating disharmony, hatred etc. We employed the authority of the Commission through the Code of Conduct and through some laws.

The Supreme court order passed in January this year came in handy which styates candidates seeking votes or asking voters not to vote for the opposite candidate on account of religion etc will be deemed to be a corrupt practice.

The solution is via election petition classifying it as a corrupt practice. I am sure, if these grounds are raised by petitioners in some election petitions, and if courts follow the Supreme Court guidelines after weighing all evidence, it will be a trendsetter.

This is a very serious matter, because given the social structure, any provocation can swing the voters. I would urge request all political parties and leaders not to indulge in it.

Has there been any progress on the issue of paid news?

No. One of the important areas of electoral reforms is strong anti-corruption plank having three elements. First, make bribery a cognisable offense, on this issue more than 50 per cent states have concurred. I was told that a cabinet note has been moved, but were expecting something to happen in future. Second, criminalise paid news with three years imprisonment, it has not happened so far. The third one is power to countermand elections on widespread bribery. We have exchanged correspondence thrice. We have again taken it up after seizure of Rs 100 core in RK Nagar. After the ever-increasing seizure in the last five elections of Rs 350 crores, we have again re-emphasised that this is the need of the hour.

Pending all those legislation, we have started using our own powers. Recently, we disqualified a person from Madhya Pradesh using section 10 A in a paid news case.

But, generally, in such cases people go to the court but end up spending not just one, but two terms before the case is closed.

We are hopeful that higher courts will make time bound decisions. This act has a deterrence, the Commission feels that such actions will definitely act as a deterrence. The more these cases come to the Commission, more action will follow irrespective of the position of the person.

Why does the Election Commission want the power to issue contempt?

This is related to the recent controversy. We are a constitutional authority, we cannot fight it out on streets with political parties or their leaders. What are we to do? Another alternative is to file defamation case and stand as a complainant — Election Commission Hazir Ho! We do not want that. We say if you persist with your unfounded allegations without evidence or material information, we should have something to tell these fellows.

Have you visualised any quantum of punishment?

No, we have not. We have only expressed our concern that it is becoming difficult. We don't know what lies in future. But it is definitely becoming difficult.

But your respect in the eyes of masses overshadows any unfounded criticism that can be levelled against you. It hardly matters.

I fully agree with you, the Commission does enjoy a great amount of trust and confidence. We are not seeking unnecessary empowerment. But for the last three four months, the tirade was unstoppable. If we don't react, people say you are sitting silent. Tell me how should we react?

You don't need to react. People punish those who breach Model Code of Conduct in elections.

Whether people teach them a lesson or not is not our concern. In recent controversy, it was becoming a bit too much. If political parties behave responsibly, we don't need these powers.

But criticism may be due to the fact that the Commission has been too soft on ruling party leaders. In case of Kejriwal and Parrikar, both said the same thing, but you were quick to haul one up and went slow on another.

In both cases, we issued show-cause notices, we issued censure and cautioned them. Of course, in one case, depending upon what has been stated there was also penal action, in another there was no such action because the judgement of the Commission did not warrant it. Now as I am leaving this job, I would say that the Commission takes a lot of care that we are perceived as being soft on ruling parties, and we apply our judgements, our actions uniformly to the full extent. There could come perception, but we are not soft.

Your predecessors have repeatedly talked about the need to change the appointment system through a collegiate system. Do you think the time has come for it?

Even the present system of appointment has served well. Chief Election Commissioners and Election Commissioners, even under the present system, have acted very well. But at times, it is important to have the confidence of all political parties. There is an established system to consult with Opposition leader. If that system is agreed upon, then nobody can accuse that this person was appointed by A Party or B Party. I won't comment whether the time has come. I think the Commission's stand, actions and continued demonstration of neutrality will show if there is any need for change.

If at the time of demitting office I say that Collegium system should be adopted, than I am not being fair because I have been appointed by the same system.

Do you think retired Election Commissioners should seek post-retirement government jobs

Personally, I am totally opposed to this. Nobody should accept it. As I understand, there is an unwritten ethos in the Commission. Nobody has thought over it.

In terms of autonomy and independence of the Commission, are you satisfied with the powers and support you have, or something more is required.

I would say three things are required as far as administrative autonomy is concerned — protection to other Election Commissioners, they should not feel they are on probation; Budget of the Commission should be from the Consolidated Fund, and our secretariat should be on the lines of Supreme Court and Parliament. These three things are still pending.

Are there any regrets that these steps could not be taken during your tenure as CEC?

My satisfaction is that I have flagged all the issues. I have compiled a compendium that has sent about 50 reform proposals to the law ministry. I think with the passage of time people will demand these reforms more rigorously. Something will come out. I have no regrets.

You are completing an eventful tenure in the Election Commission. Anything more you want to share?

Actually, I am leaving my office with, I would say, satisfaction. Having been a part of so many elections, right from 2012, general Lok Sabha elections, state elections, Union Territory elections, I did not see any great low. Our main mandate was to conduct free and fair elections, and I feel that during my tenure as CEC and even as EC, we did our level best to ensure that voters are able to participate, and that money movement from the ground level is restrained. The most exciting times were when we seized Rs 350 crores, millions of litres of liquor and so much of drugs and narcotics in the Northeast, Punjab and other places.

Of course, another important feature of these years was our clamp down on abuse of money, particularly in RK nagar constituency, where the Commission had to use Article 324. We had to do it thrice, twice in 2016 and once this year. This year our enforcement agencies seized over Rs 100 crores in one constituency. We don't know how much money was seized from another source. I would only say that we could leave a good impact on the movement of money, liquor and drugs which is used to influence voters. Though a lot remains to be done, we are satisfied that we have brought complete control on muscle power, especially in most difficult areas of West Bengal, where there is a lot of tension among political parties. We could also ensure voters to come to these polling stations. By and large our mandate was fulfilled.

It appears that the government is not open to the Commission's suggestions to bring about transparency. The government either sits on those proposals, or says it cannot be done.

Both the Government and the Commission work for the people. Ideally, there should be no conflict. There could be some adjustments in terms of legal amendments etc, but ultimately it should happen.

There is renewed clamour for simultaneous polls for the Parliament and States. Do you think, the time has come for it, or is it an ill advised idea.

All necessary work by the Parliamentary committee, by the Commission, and our response to the law ministry, has been completed. All that needed now is a debate where all political parties sit and take a call. Whether there is some adjustment among political parties or not is for them to decide. Someone has to lead this building-up of political consensus because it requires a lot of Constitutional amendments.

You must have done some exercise in terms of requirement of administrative and security arrangements

Of course, there would be challenges of logistics — large number of EVMs, now 100 per cent VVPATs, security personnel etc. But we are sure if there is a will, we can run simultaneous elections, may take few more phases, more time but it can be done.

Do you think 100 per cent VVPAT coverage will settle the controversy about EVMs for once and for all?

I think the challenge we ran last month has already settled the issue. But the final thing has come with the commitment of the Commission for 100 per cent VVPAT coverage. Nothing more can be done. We are now going to prescribe procedures where a definite percentage of paper slips will also be counted. At least, in one round, they will be counted first and then tallied with the result of the EVMs. So, this matter is also going to be settled in the next few days.