The acute tragedy caused by the second wave of Covid-19 infections was reflected in the admonition of the Madras High Court to the Election Commission. The court held the EC ‘singularly’ responsible for the present calamity. The Calcutta High Court had told the EC earlier that its job was not confined to issuing circulars and holding meetings; it had to ensure the implementation of its guidelines during elections held in a pandemic. The Madras High Court’s criticism assumes that, as an independent, Constitutional body, the EC was tasked with ensuring people’s health — for citizens must survive, the high court reportedly said, in order to enjoy the rights guaranteed by democracy. Allowing campaign rallies to continue unchecked demonstrated its irresponsibility: the court said that its officers could be booked for murder. Safe polling during a pandemic can be done — the last presidential elections in the United States of America demonstrated that. The EC is expected to remain unaffected by any pressure except the need to secure the citizens’ health: only that can make elections free and fair. The effects of the Covid tragedy were painfully visible; the high court reportedly asked if the EC were on another planet.

The plan of an eight-phased election in one state was questionable in any case; anyone could have predicted the disastrous rise in infections there. Accusations of the EC’s compliance with the Bharatiya Janata Party’s wishes may be baseless, but it is more than a little strange that it is the BJP that has sprung to the EC’s defence after the Madras High Court’s remarks. The BJP president, J.P. Nadda, said that people in an institution, any institution, should keep in mind the dignity of sentences and words. Is the government an institution? Or is it just the judiciary? Perhaps Mr Nadda would like to clarify the matter by claiming myopia as the right of all BJP leaders? Anything is possible. That was borne out by the West Bengal BJP spokesperson, Samik Bhattacharya, who declared that the Madras High Court’s remarks had ‘tainted’ the judiciary and were proof of a ‘conspiracy’ with the ruling party in Bengal that should be investigated. Is it healthy for the EC to have such passionate defenders among politicians who are willing to invoke malicious fantasies to uphold its honour?