Why in the News
On 18 April 2026, an address to the nation by Prime Minister Narendra Modi was broadcast live on Doordarshan, Sansad TV and Akashvani. According to The Hindu, in it he named four opposition parties and urged women voters of Tamil Nadu and West Bengal to punish them in the 23 April polling, in the context of the 131st Constitution Amendment Bill (also called the delimitation bill in the press) being defeated in the Lok Sabha on 17 April. Opposition leaders and some former officials called it a violation of the Model Code of Conduct; according to The Hindu, the Election Commission had taken no action on the complaints received until the article was written. The subject of this article is not to decide anyone's guilt, but to understand what the code and the law say about this situation and where the dispute lies.
Background: The Model Code of Conduct
The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is the Election Commission's set of guidelines for political parties and candidates. According to The Hindu, its first draft was made by the Kerala government in 1960, the Commission formalised it in 1968, revised it in 1974 and added Part VII on the "party in power" in 1979. The code is not law; the basis of the Commission's power is Article 324, which the Supreme Court called a "reservoir of power" in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978). The Punjab and Haryana High Court said in Harbans Singh Jalal (1997) that the code applies from the announcement of the election schedule. Punishments are said to range from a reprimand to suspension of recognition under Paragraph 16A of the Election Symbols Order, 1968 (all in The Hindu).
The Code and the Law: Two Different Tests
- Part VII of the code. According to The Hindu, clauses 1(a), 1(b) and 4 bar the party in power from mixing official tours with election campaigning, using government machinery for campaigning, and using publicly funded mass media for partisan purposes. The code asks what the ruling party did with public resources.
- The Representation of the People Act, 1951. Section 123(3) treats an appeal by a candidate or his agent on the basis of "his" religion, caste, community, language and so on as a corrupt practice; in Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017), a seven-judge bench held 4:3 that "his" includes the voter as well. According to The Hindu's author, this section was not made for appeals based on gender or party affiliation.
- The Section 123(7) route. A petition pending in the Supreme Court (Diary No. 24600/2026, petitioner former Congress MP T.N. Prathapan) relies on Section 123(7), which treats taking the assistance of government servants for a candidate's electoral prospects as a corrupt practice; the petition asks whether it applies to public broadcasters and the Prime Minister's Office (The Hindu).
Points of Dispute
- The critics' argument. In the view of The Hindu's author, this prima facie appears to be a Part VII matter, and the Commission's silence amounts to avoiding the use of an available tool. According to Outlook, CPI(M) leader M.A. Baby called it a "serious violation", and former Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi said a political speech from a public broadcaster goes against the principle of a level playing field, and the Commission should have issued a notice and investigated.
- The RTI claim. According to a PTI report of 21 May, the Trinamool's Saket Gokhale claimed that in response to an RTI, the Election Commission said no application for prior permission for the broadcast was received. This is Gokhale's statement; we have not seen a copy of the reply. In reports published up to October 2026, no subsequent public action or decision by the Commission was found [source limitation].
- Unanswered questions. According to Outlook, the applicability of the code to addresses to the nation is disputed. The ruling side's case, or any formal response from the government or the Election Commission, was not found in the sources, so it is not given here. Former Chief Election Commissioner T.N. Krishnamurthy told Outlook that if states going to the polls are not specifically targeted, the government can make announcements to the nation; he accepted an anomaly in the current arrangement and said the code needs amendment in line with today's media environment.
Analysis
- The code is open-textured. Its enforcement rests on the Commission's discretion; that is both its strength and its weakness.
- The difference between law and code. The scope of a legal corrupt practice is limited, while Part VII of the code is centred on the use of resources.
- Institutional credibility. The Commission's action or silence becomes the test of its role in fair elections. Without the outcome of the pending petition, no conclusion can be drawn on this.
From the Exam's Point of View
Prelims: Article 324; the legal status of the MCC; Section 123 of the RP Act, 1951; corrupt practices.
Mains Practice Question
Mains (GS-2, electoral reforms/constitutional bodies): "Examine the challenges of enforcing the Model Code of Conduct without giving it statutory status." Structure: the nature of the code, the Commission's power (Article 324), punishment options, the question of the party in power and public media, suggestions for reform. Avoid conclusive comment on any specific event and cite sources.
Sources and Limitations
- The Hindu, "Did the Prime Minister's broadcast violate MCC?", V. Venkatesan, 5 May 2026: Open the article (thehindu.com)
- Outlook India, Zenaira Bakhsh, 30 April 2026: Open the article (outlookindia.com)
- Devdiscourse (PTI), 21 May 2026: Open the article (devdiscourse.com)
- LiveLaw, 22 April 2026 (report of the petition being filed): Open the article (livelaw.in)
Limitation: The original text of the code, any order or letter of the Election Commission, the Supreme Court petition and the RTI reply were not read directly. The Hindu article is its author's legal interpretation, not neutral news; its conclusions are given here as such. The Hindu calls the bill the "131st Constitution Amendment Bill" and PTI calls it the "delimitation bill"; both names are of the same bill, which according to PTI was linked to increasing Lok Sabha and assembly seats and implementing the Nari Shakti Vandan Act. We have not repeated the Prime Minister's words or the alleged word count quoted by Outlook. No conclusion has been given on whether the code was violated or not. No report of any public action by the Commission, or of the petition's admission or hearing, after 21 May and up to October 2026 was found in published sources; this is an absence of reporting, not a claim that nothing happened.
