It is peculiar that the Election Commission of India (ECI) announced assembly elections in Maharashtra and Jharkhand just a week after declaring the results from Haryana and Jammu and Kashmir on October 8. The rapid sequencing of these elections, despite the feasibility of holding them concurrently, contradicts the government’s proposed One-Nation, One-Election policy—a solution touted to simplify India’s electoral system. This raises the significant question: Is the Election Commission’s role in conducting elections favouring the interests of the ruling party led by the BJP? Such actions raise concerns about partisanship within this supposedly autonomous body, which is meant to function without succumbing to pressure or influence from the ruling party.
ECI’s Actions Benefiting BJP?
There’s growing speculation that the separation of Maharashtra and Jharkhand from other states in the election schedule was done to favour the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). This scheduling marks a departure from the ECI’s previous convention of holding simultaneous elections whenever possible. A similar tactic was employed in 2017 when Gujarat’s assembly elections were held separately from Himachal Pradesh, allegedly to give the BJP an edge in Gujarat. This ongoing separation of the state elections will have its own impact on the future elections. The current separation of state elections from each other has created a worrying trend, as seen with the decoupling of Delhi’s upcoming elections in early 2025 from the rest. This inconsistency, observers claim, reflects a shift from ECI’s role as an impartial referee to one increasingly influenced by political objectives, undermining its credibility as a neutral umpire.
Legal and Constitutional Concerns
Constitutionally speaking, under Article 172(1), state assemblies have a maximum five-year term unless dissolved earlier. The ECI is tasked with holding elections within six months before this term ends. However, the case in Maharashtra shows a disregard for established convention. The term of the Maharashtra assembly ends on November 26, yet the ECI has scheduled election results for November 23, leaving a narrow window to constitute a new House. This administrative oversight, which the Commission could have easily avoided, undermines the democratic process. It not only creates unnecessary procedural complications but also raises concerns about whether such scheduling benefits the ruling party. When the autonomy of a crucial institution like the ECI is questioned, it directly impacts the credibility of the electoral process and the trust citizens place in democracy.”
The EC’s Role Under Scrutiny
The Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision to separate Maharashtra and Haryana elections, which followed a shared electoral calendar in 2014 and 2019, raises concerns about political motives. This deviation lacks a clear explanation, suggesting possible manoeuvring in favour of the ruling party. Similarly, Jharkhand’s elections being held in two phases, instead of the five used in previous years due to security concerns, also appears questionable. The change in the security rationale remains unclear, further fueling suspicions of strategic scheduling designed to benefit political interests rather than following established norms.
Favourable Conditions for the BJP
The separation of polls seems to provide the BJP with a strategic advantage, allowing it to focus its efforts on specific states without dividing resources. In Maharashtra, the BJP faces a tough battle against the Congress-led Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA), which outperformed the BJP in the recent Lok Sabha elections. The tight competition in Haryana mirrored this, with the BJP only narrowly defeating the Congress. By decoupling these elections, the BJP can concentrate its campaigning more effectively in each state, raising concerns that the ECI’s scheduling decisions may be influenced by political considerations rather than impartial governance.
A New Political Reality
As the BJP manoeuvres to gain electoral advantages, the role of the ECI has emerged as a significant “factor” in shaping Indian elections. This has led to increasing scrutiny over the Commission’s neutrality, with critics questioning whether it is being swayed by political interests. However, history demonstrates that opposition parties have often surmounted such obstacles, overcoming both structural and resource-based challenges. In Maharashtra and Jharkhand, the outcomes will hinge on the tactical astuteness of both sides. The Opposition will need to intensify its efforts, not only to counter the BJP’s considerable resources but also to outmanoeuvre its political strategies on the ground.
The Final thoughts
Thus, the outcome will depend not only on electoral tactics but also on the resilience of Indian democracy in maintaining impartiality and fairness in its election processes. The Election Commission of India’s role, now under intense scrutiny, has become a central factor in shaping political dynamics. While the BJP leverages its resource advantages and political strategies, the opposition must counter with strategic planning and determination. History has shown that despite such challenges, opposition parties can prevail. The real test will be whether the democratic system upholds its core values of neutrality, ensuring a fair contest for all sides.
Mohd Ziyauallah Khan is a freelance content writer based in Nagpur. He is also an activist and social entrepreneur, co-founder of the group TruthScape, a team of digital activists fighting disinformation on social media.
