Shaikh Nizamuddin Raises Concerns Over ECI Independence, Urges Caution on Vande Mataram Case
“चुनावी प्रक्रिया की विश्वसनीयता को नजरअंदाज नहीं किया जा सकता”: ECI की कार्यप्रणाली पर उठे सवालों के बीच शेख निजामुद्दीन ने जवाबदेही की मांग की
New Delhi: Shaikh Nizamuddin, National Assistant General Secretary of the All India Milli Council, has called for careful public scrutiny of two recent developments involving the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Supreme Court’s observations in the Vande Mataram case, saying both raise important questions about democratic institutions and constitutional rights.
ECI Independence: “Judicial Intervention Is Urgent”
Referring to recent reporting about divisions within the Election Commission and the continuing legal challenge to the law governing appointments of Election Commissioners, Nizamuddin said concerns long voiced by opposition parties and civil society deserved serious examination. The Supreme Court has also delivered differing opinions over the challenge to the 2023 appointment law, with the matter now set to go before a larger bench. Justice Dipankar Datta observed that it was not enough for the ECI to be independent, it must also “appear to be independent.”
“These developments raise disturbing questions about public confidence in the electoral process,” Nizamuddin said. “People expect serious and urgent judicial intervention without constitutional questions being lost in technicalities.”
He criticised what he described as government silence and inadequate mainstream media scrutiny, arguing that the credibility of electoral institutions was fundamental to the survival of democracy.
Vande Mataram: “Wait for the Final Judgment”
On the separate Vande Mataram case, Nizamuddin welcomed the constitutional questions being examined but cautioned against treating oral observations as a final verdict.
The Supreme Court recently indicated that people refusing to sing Vande Mataram on genuine grounds of conscience or religion should not face criminal consequences, while citing the 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel precedent. The matter, however, remains under consideration and the Centre has been asked to respond.
“Judicial observations can be encouraging, but ultimately it is the final judgment that determines the law,” Nizamuddin said. “Constitutional values, not ideological considerations, must guide the process. It is therefore prudent to wait for the final verdict rather than celebrate prematurely.”
