Poll code applicable to Central govt too for policy decisions on Bihar: EC

The Election Commission of India’s (ECI) reminder that the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) applies equally to the Central government may, on paper, sound like an assertion of independence. Yet, as the Bihar Assembly elections approach, the announcement becomes less as a bold assertion of authority and more a test of credibility.

The ECI’s statement came on Wednesday, two days after it announced the election schedule for Bihar. Polling will be held in two phases, on 6 and 11 November, with counting scheduled for 14 November. “The MCC shall also be applicable to the Central government so far as announcements/policy decisions for Bihar are concerned,” the poll body said, adding that it has issued directives to prevent misuse of official machinery and to ensure the removal of political hoardings and defacements from public and private spaces.

The procedural announcement might have passed unnoticed in calmer times. But the timing — coming just after the Centre’s lavish rollout of new welfare schemes and infrastructure projects in Bihar — gives it political heft. For Opposition parties, it raises the familiar question: does the ECI act as a neutral referee, or as a reluctant observer making the right noises while allowing the powerful to proceed unchecked?

In the weeks leading up to the MCC taking effect, the Central government unveiled a flurry of new measures in Bihar. The most conspicuous was the promise of a Rs 10,000 direct transfer to 75 lakh women in the state — presented as a one-time grant to support livelihoods and small enterprises. It was accompanied by new announcements under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, additional rural housing allocations, a fresh highway package dubbed the 'Bihar Prosperity Corridor', and a major flood-mitigation plan for the Kosi basin.

Union ministers arrived in Patna, Bhagalpur and Gaya to lay foundation stones and cut ribbons, creating the impression of a government in overdrive for development. But the Opposition saw something else: what RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav called “a cynical pre-election shopping spree using public funds”.

'Deleted votes in Bihar exceed victory margins of last polls in some seats'

The Congress, too, accused the BJP of misusing Central power for political gain. “If these were genuine welfare schemes, they would have been launched months ago, not on the eve of elections,” former state Congress chief Akhilesh Prasad Singh said.

For the ruling party, however, the timing was framed as incidental, with spokespersons insisting that governance cannot be paused simply because elections are due. That argument, while familiar, now collides with the ECI’s reiteration of the code — and the question of whether the ECI will, in practice, enforce its own caution.

This is not the first time the ECI has reminded the government of its obligations under the MCC, but its record in acting decisively against the BJP has been patchy. During past elections, including the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, the it faced sustained criticism for hesitating to censure top leaders — most notably Prime Minister Narendra Modi — over alleged communal or inflammatory speeches. In other instances, it acted swiftly against lower-level violations while steering clear of the politically explosive.

The ECI, for its part, has repeatedly defended its neutrality, insisting that it acts “in accordance with constitutional wisdom”. Yet observers and political analysts note a pattern: firmness against regional or Opposition leaders, restraint with those in power at the Centre. Against this backdrop, Wednesday’s declaration reads more like a ritual gesture than a warning likely to be heeded.

The credibility of the ECI in Bihar is further clouded by the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the state’s electoral rolls earlier this year — a process that saw the deletion of nearly 69 lakh names. The ECI has faced intense scrutiny in the Supreme Court over the exercise, after reports suggested that large numbers of women and Muslim voters had been removed from the lists without due notice.

Bihar: Cong bets on women, EBCs with Priyanka Gandhi leading poll campaign

According to data placed before the Court, more than 23 lakh women voters were struck off the rolls. Civil society groups and Opposition parties allege that many were deleted on flimsy grounds such as “absence” or “migration”, without being given an opportunity to verify their entries. The ECI has since been directed to publish lists of the deleted names and explain its criteria, but confidence in the process remains shaken.

For women voters — the very constituency now targeted by the Centre’s Rs 10,000 assistance scheme — this presents a bitter irony. Many who are being promised welfare benefits may not even find their names on the voter rolls. If the state’s largest welfare constituency has been partially disenfranchised through bureaucratic error or administrative design, then both the scheme and the EC’s assurances of fairness begin to ring hollow.

In Bihar, the stakes are not just political but institutional. With women voters forming a decisive electoral bloc and their deletions under the SIR still under judicial review, the ECI’s credibility is being measured not by its circulars but by its courage to act. Its current posture — of issuing reminders and guidelines — may please the rulebook, but unless matched by visible enforcement, it risks being read as theatre rather than governance.

Bihar’s social landscape — defined by migration, rural poverty, and women-led households — makes it especially susceptible to welfare-driven politics. A direct-cash transfer of ₹10,000 to millions of women can tilt perceptions powerfully, particularly in a state where gender gaps in income and employment remain among the widest in India.

The ECI’s challenge is therefore not just administrative but moral: can it insist on fairness without fear? Can it ensure that welfare delivery does not become electoral inducement? And most critically, can it reclaim trust at a time when voter deletion controversies have eroded the public’s faith in its impartiality?

With PTI inputs