Answer

Introduction

The Model Code of Conduct (MCC), introduced during the 1960 Kerala elections, is a voluntary ethical framework for political parties. It gained formal recognition in the 1990s and was last revised in 2013. However, being non-statutory, it relies on moral persuasion rather than legal enforcement, reducing its deterrent impact.

Body

Key Limitations of MCC in Preventing Electoral Malpractices

• Lack of Legal Backing: The MCC is not legally enforceable, making it a moral guideline rather than a binding law.
  Eg: The Standing Committee on Law and Justice (2013) recommended making the MCC legally binding, but no legislative action followed.
• Frequent Violations by Ruling Parties: Governments often announce cash transfers or new projects close to elections, breaching the MCC’s spirit.
  Eg: The Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana (2025) in Bihar disbursed ₹10,000 to women just days before polling, influencing voter sentiment.
• Weak Deterrence Mechanisms: The EC can only issue warnings or censure; punitive action must rely on other laws like the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which prolongs accountability.
• Ambiguity in Defining “Ongoing Schemes”: The MCC allows ongoing programmes to continue, which ruling parties often use to present new populist schemes as old ones.
• Limited Monitoring Capacity of the Election Commission: The EC’s oversight mechanism struggles with resource and manpower constraints, making real-time enforcement difficult.
  

Reforms to Enhance Effectiveness of MCC

• Codify MCC Provisions in Law: Incorporate key MCC provisions into the Representation of the People Act for clear legal consequences.
  Eg: Similar to the legal framework governing election expenditure limits, violations could invite direct penal action.
• Strengthen EC’s Autonomy and Resources: Provide the Election Commission with independent investigative and prosecution powers for swift action.
• Create a Permanent MCC Oversight Cell: Establish a digital complaint monitoring system for citizens and observers to report violations with transparency.
  Eg: Real-time grievance redressal similar to the cVIGIL app can increase accountability during campaigns.
• Public Disclosure and Naming Mechanism: Mandate public disclosure of all MCC violations by parties and candidates to deter misconduct through voter awareness.
  

Reforms to Enhance Enforceability of MCC:

• Fast-Track Electoral Tribunals: Establish special courts or tribunals to handle MCC violations within election timelines.
  Eg: A 45-day disposal mechanism could ensure decisions before results are declared.
• Empower Election Observers with Quasi-Judicial Authority: Allow observers to impose on-spot fines or temporary bans for clear violations.
• Integrate Technology for Real-Time Surveillance: Use AI-based monitoring tools to flag MCC breaches from campaign rallies and advertisements.
• Stronger Coordination Between ECI and Law Enforcement: Institutionalize cooperation between ECI, police, and income tax authorities for prompt investigation of monetary inducements.

Conclusion

The MCC is vital to India’s democratic ethics but weakened by legal and institutional gaps. Strengthening it through legal backing, digital monitoring, and greater ECI powers is crucial to ensure fair elections and uphold public trust in democracy.

DOWNLOAD PDF