In recent developments, the Election Commission (EC) has expressed its stance to the Supreme Court that laudatory news articles, where a political leader boasts his record and achievements for appealing votes should be considered as paid news. The EC argued that while politicians have a fundamental right to free speech, they cannot utilize it for propagating their motivated propaganda.
The EC sought a formal declaration from the court, asking whether it would be appropriate to categorize carefully worded, laudatory statements presented in the name of a candidate as paid news. These often direct appeals to voters are usually not only praising the candidate but also take up disproportionate space, showing bias and departing from the expected dispassionate coverage.
The EC emphasized the need for unbiased repoting and cautioned against allowing such motivated propaganda under the garb of free speech during the election period. It argued that such actions enable candidates with strong connections to gain an unfair advantage through these silent services, calling this relationship between candidates and publications an unholy alliance.
Background of the Issue
The EC’s commentary comes following its challenge against the Delhi High Court verdict which quashed its decision to disqualify Madhya Pradesh Minister Narottam Mishra for three years on charges of paid news. In 2017, the EC disqualified Mr. Mishra for not filing accounts related to election expenses on news items.
Mishra’s membership was revoked under the provision of The Representation of the People Act, 1951, meant for providing wrong information to the commission on expenses incurred during the elections. The EC’s paid news committee concluded that the news items/articles related to Mishra were biased, one-sided, and fit the existing definition of paid news as given by the Press Council of India (PCI).
However, Delhi HC had a differing opinion. They ruled that the BJP leader was merely exercising his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The court said that EC’s realm cannot extend to judging content of speech; it is only to judge whether the election expenses incurred by the candidate have been accounted for, against which the EC argued that its powers to investigate the content of such news coverage should not be limited.
The Problem of Paid News
While paid news is not currently classified as an electoral offense, there is a standing case to make it one. The EC has recommended to the government that the Representation of the People Act, 1951, be amended to make the publishing or abetting the publishing of paid news as an electoral offense. Until this is enacted, contestants who use paid news can only be reprimanded for not including the expenses involved in their campaign accounts.
Mishra’s case highlighted another facet of this issue. The EC opined that even if it were true that he made no payment, he should have included an estimated amount in his accounts. It was also emphasized that candidates cannot simply claim that they did not authorize these reports. As long as the intention to boost someone’s prospects was clear, and there was no objection from the candidate, the EC can rule that there was ‘implied authorisation’.
Furthermore, ensuring timely adjudication is key to enforcing election law in both letter and spirit, which requires a legal framework where electoral issues are expeditiously settled. This becomes extremely important especially when delays are often created by candidates approaching the courts to halt inquiries.
Suggested Electoral Reforms
The EC suggested several other electoral reforms apart from making ‘paid news’ an electoral offence. These include decriminalization of politics, inner-party democracy, auditing of parties’ accounts, checking the usage of black money in polls, government-sponsored advertisements and punishment for false affidavit by candidates etc. Over the last few decades, many recommendations have been made by different committees and panels to streamline the poll process and reinforce the EC.
Most of the significant electoral reforms have been implemented due to the Supreme Court’s interventions. A few noteworthy judgments are: a voter’s right to know candidates’ assets, qualifications, liabilities, and criminal antecedents; disqualification from contesting elections if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment; immediate disqualification on conviction of an offence attracting a punishment of two years or above; and the provision of the ‘none of the above’ (NOTA) option in Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), among others. These reforms collectively aim towards ensuring fair practices in the political and electoral processes.
Last Modified: February 2, 2024