GS Paper 2 15 marks · 250w 14 min Medium
Discuss the role of the Election Commission of India in the light of the evolution of the Model Code of Conduct.
Subtopic: Constitution & Polity · Election Commission and the Model Code of Conduct
How to structure your answer
Introduction: MCC as consensual norms enforced under Article 324 → Evolution: Kerala 1960, nationwide 1962, party-in-power chapter 1979, 1991 consolidation and Seshan era, manifesto Part VIII 2013, cVIGIL 2018 → ECI's role: level playing field, swift non-litigious remedies, Article 324 reservoir → Concerns: no statutory force, uneven enforcement, freebies and hate speech → Conclusion
Written within the word limit
252 words · target 250 words · 14 min
The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is a consensus-based set of norms for parties and candidates, enforced by the Election Commission of India (ECI) under Article 324 from the announcement of polls until results, to secure free and fair elections.
Evolution of the MCC
- It originated as a voluntary code drawn up for the 1960 Kerala Assembly elections and was circulated nationally by the ECI during the 1962 general elections.
- A chapter regulating the party in power — barring use of official machinery, government advertising and fresh scheme announcements — was added in 1979.
- The 1991 consolidation, enforced assertively by CEC T.N. Seshan, converted the code into a real deterrent.
- After S. Subramaniam Balaji (2013), guidelines on election manifestos were added as Part VIII.
- Technology deepened enforcement: the cVIGIL app (2018) enables geo-tagged citizen complaints, and 2019 saw temporary campaign bans on star campaigners.
The ECI's role through the MCC
- It creates a level playing field by neutralising incumbency advantages the moment elections are announced.
- It permits swift, non-litigious remedies — censures, transfers of partisan officials, campaign bans — where statutory processes would be too slow; Mohinder Singh Gill (1978) affirmed Article 324 as a reservoir of powers.
- Legally enforceable portions operate through the RPA, 1951 and penal law provisions.
Concerns
- The MCC lacks statutory force; a 2013 Parliamentary Standing Committee favoured legislating it, but the ECI prefers the flexibility and speed of a moral code.
- Allegations of uneven enforcement, hate speech and the freebies debate test its credibility.
The MCC's moral authority is the ECI's sharpest instrument. Its future rests less on statutory codification than on visibly even-handed application.
What an examiner expects to see
- The MCC is a consensual code operative from poll announcement to results, binding morally and enforced partly through ordinary law (RPA 1951, penal provisions).
- Evolution: Kerala 1960 origin, nationwide circulation 1962, party-in-power chapter 1979, consolidation and assertive enforcement 1991, manifesto guidelines (Part VIII) 2013, cVIGIL 2018.
- Article 324 as a reservoir of powers (Mohinder Singh Gill, 1978) underpins ECI action where legislation is silent.
- The party-in-power chapter neutralises incumbency: no official machinery for campaigning, no public-cost advertising, no new schemes after announcement.
- Statutory-status debate: the 2013 Standing Committee favoured legal backing; the ECI argues judicial timelines would blunt the code's speed.
- Credibility tests: uneven action on hate speech, freebies and the timing of enforcement decisions.
Concrete cases, schemes and judgments
- 1960 Kerala Assembly elections — the first code of conduct
- T.N. Seshan's tenure (1990-96) — assertive MCC enforcement
- S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) — manifesto guidelines added as Part VIII
- 2019 general election — temporary campaign bans imposed on star campaigners for communal remarks
- cVIGIL app (2018) for real-time citizen reporting of violations
Terminology to weave into the answer
Model Code of Conductlevel playing fieldArticle 324 plenary powersparty in powercVIGILstatutory backing debate