Did PM Modi’s broadcast violate the MCC?

Why in News?

Prime Minister’s April 18, 2026, address broadcast live on Doordarshan, Sansad TV, and All India Radio has triggered debate over a possible violation of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) during the election period.

It raises a foundational question: Can the party in power use publicly funded media for partisan messaging while the Model Code of Conduct is in force?

Evolution of the Model Code of Conduct:

Historical Development: 

• The Model Code of Conduct was first drafted by the Kerala government in 1960 for use in state elections. 
• The Election Commission of India formalised it in 1968, revised it in 1974, and, crucially, added Part VII, “The Party in Power,” in 1979. 
• The MCC was long viewed as a “gentlemen’s agreement” or voluntary. It was former Chief Election Commissioner T.N. Seshan who, from 1991 onwards, enforced it with unprecedented rigour and transformed it into a credible regulatory instrument.

Constitutional Foundation:

• Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) case: The Supreme Court described Article 324 as a “reservoir of power” that allows the EC to act where Parliament has not legislated. This judgment remains the constitutional anchor for MCC enforcement.
• Harbans Singh Jalal v. Union of India (1997) case: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the Code comes into effect automatically from the moment the election schedule is announced. Sanctions range from censure letters to the suspension of party recognition under Paragraph 16A of the Election Symbols Order, 1968.

Did PM Modi’s broadcast violate the MCC?

The broadcast raises distinct questions both under Part VII of the MCC and the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

1. Part VII of the MCC: 

The PM, in his address, named four Opposition parties and urged women voters in Tamil Nadu and West Bengal to punish them at the polls for defeating the 131st Constitution Amendment Bill in the Lok Sabha. The speech was political in nature and was delivered through a public broadcaster — something not permitted when the Model Code is in operation.

2. Representation of the People Act, 1951:

(a) Section 123(3): The Corrupt Practice of Identity-Based Appeals:

• It is a corrupt practice for a candidate or his agent to appeal to voters on the grounds of “his” religion, race, caste, community, or language. The provision is defined by two key features: a pronoun (“his”) and five enumerated nouns. 

(b) Section 123(7):

• This provision makes it a corrupt practice to obtain or procure the assistance of government servants (including gazetted officers) and official machinery for furthering a candidate’s electoral prospects.

A writ petition pending before the Supreme Court argues that the use of Doordarshan and Sansad TV (fully publicly funded and operating under government control), along with Prime Minister’s Office personnel, to prepare and disseminate a partisan broadcast falls within this prohibition. 

Associated Challenges and Controversy: 

• Perceived Inaction by the Election Commission: Despite formal complaints and a writ petition in the Supreme Court, the ECI has not issued a formal order in the public domain. The absence of a timely and transparent response raises concerns about its institutional responsiveness and weakens public confidence in electoral oversight. 
• Allegations of partisan use of Public Broadcasters:  During the 2019 General Elections, Doordarshan’s coverage of the PM’s Kedarnath visit just before polling drew criticism. Critics have argued that Public broadcasters such as All India Radio and Doordarshan have effectively been converted into the ruling party’s official broadcasters.
• MCC as a Non-Statutory Code: The MCC is not a law and lacks statutory backing. Violations do not automatically attract penal consequences. Enforcement depends on the Election Commission’s discretion under Article 324, as recognised in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner. The EC may interpret whether the broadcast is Legitimate official outreach or Political campaigning in disguise. 
• Absence of a Statutory Equal Airtime Rule: India does not have a legally enforceable “equal time rule” or fairness doctrine for public broadcasters during elections. There exists a convention of providing airtime to parties based on their Lok Sabha seat share, but this is not codified in law.
• Gender as an Electoral Axis: The broadcast sought to mobilise women voters specifically — a category not enumerated in Section 123(3)’s five nouns. This reveals a gap in the statute: it was written for the sectarian politics of 1961.
• Constitutional Dimension: Free and fair elections have been recognised by the Supreme Court as part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This principle is rooted in Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression). The use of state-controlled media for potentially partisan messaging during elections may distort the level playing field and undermine electoral fairness. 

The Supreme Court writ petition characterises the EC’s inaction as an abdication of its constitutional mandate under Article 324. If the Supreme Court admits the petition and requires the EC to respond, the Commission will face a rare instance of judicial scrutiny of its own inaction.

UPSC Mains 2025:

Q. Discuss the ‘corrupt practices’ for the purpose of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Analyse whether the increase in the assets of the legislators and/or their associates, disproportionate to their known sources of income, would constitute ‘undue influence’ and consequently a corrupt practice. 

UPSC Mains 2020:

Q. “There is a need for simplification of procedure for disqualification of persons found guilty of corrupt practices under the Representation of the People’s Act.” Comment.

UPSC Mains 2019:

Q. On what grounds a people’s representative can be disqualified under the Representation of the People Act, 1951? Also mention the remedies available to such person against his disqualification.

PDF