MCC/Model Code of Conduct

Introduction

Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) administrative instrument containing behavioural norms for political parties, candidates and government functionaries during the election period. Though not a statute, the MCC is central to preserving the integrity, fairness and level playing field of Indian elections: it regulates use of official machinery, campaign content and timing, public resources, and the conduct of political actors between the date the poll schedule is announced and the completion of the election process. For practitioners, the MCC is the first line of attack and defence in pre‑poll and intra‑poll litigation and administrative grievance practice.

Core Legal Framework

• Constitution of India, Article 324 — vests the Election Commission with power of superintendence, direction and control of elections. The ECI issues the MCC under these constitutional powers.
• Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA):
• Section 123 — defines “corrupt practice” (bribery, undue influence, appeal on grounds of religion/caste, hiring of vehicles, etc.). Many MCC violations, when proven, become corrupt practices under S.123 and attract electoral consequences including election petitions.
• Sections 126 / 126A — statutory prohibitions that align with MCC objectives: e.g., restrictions close to poll (blanket ban on public meetings/advertisements during specified hours) and prohibitions on publication of exit polls (see text of sections for particulars).
• Election petitions remedy framework (RPA) — challenges to election results on grounds including corrupt practice must be brought under the RPA (time limits are strict; see RPA for the 45‑day limitation period applicable in most cases).
• Indian Penal Code and election offences:
• IPC (Offences relating to elections, generally located in Sections 171A–171I of the IPC) — criminalizes false statements, undue influence, and certain election‑related misconduct; these provisions are often invoked alongside MCC violations.
• Election Commission of India instruments:
• Text of the Model Code of Conduct (ECI website) and ECI’s subsequent clarifications, instructions and guidelines (on use of official resources, government advertising, affidavits, social media, paid news, role of civil servants, etc.). These are administrative directions but carry coercive weight because the ECI can take various remedial steps (censure, direction to register FIR, advise for disciplinary action, request countermanding, etc.).

Practical Application and Nuances

How the MCC operates in practice
– Trigger: MCC becomes operative from the date the ECI announces the election schedule (notification). Until results are declared, its prohibitions and obligations apply—some restrictions (like the “48‑hour silence” or exit‑poll bans) have specific time windows; others (no misuse of office/resources) are in force throughout.
– Who is bound: political parties, candidates, leaders, ministers, and indirectly state machinery and public servants. The MCC places bespoke obligations on government officials—no inaugurations of projects, no use of official publications or advertisements for political mileage, no transfers or appointments that subvert neutrality.
– Enforcement chain:
1. Complaint to ECI — ECI issues show‑cause notices, may direct withdrawal of offending material, censure leaders, or direct state machinery to act (police/FIR).
2. If ECI’s direction is not complied with — approach the High Court under Article 226 for writ relief; in urgent cases seek interim restraints on campaigning or orders to stop use of official resources.
3. Where the conduct constitutes a corrupt practice or election offence — file election petition within statutory window / seek criminal prosecution under IPC / RPA provisions.

Concrete examples and evidentiary approach
– Appeal on religion/caste: MCC (and S.123 RPA) forbids appeals to communal feelings. To succeed, procure video/audio of the speech with verified timestamps, contemporaneous press reports, affidavits of attendees, and social‑media metadata. Isolate the language, establish audience context and linkage to inducement/solicit votes.
– Misuse of official machinery (minister inaugurating project days before polls): collect Government/departmental orders for the event, invitations, photographs showing minister and government branding, evidence of publicity (newspaper ads, social media posts), travel and expenditure records. File a complaint with ECI attaching documentary proof and request immediate directions (order to remove material; injunctive relief from High Court).
– Paid news/undisclosed advertisements: obtain copies of the advertisement, press cuttings, invoices from the media house, bank trail for payments, and internal emails (via RTI where applicable). ECI has in past treated paid news as a corrupt practice; petitioners should identify nexus between party/candidate and media house.
– Transfers and postings of officers: secure transfer orders, written requests, or public notifications; establish timing vis‑à‑vis poll schedule. If transfers seem politically motivated, seek ECI intervention and, if needed, writ relief.
– Social media violations: preserve screenshots with device metadata and platform take‑down notices; obtain platform logs via court order if required. Digital forensics and chain of custody affidavits are crucial.

How to frame reliefs and causes of action
– Administrative relief from ECI: immediate removal of offending content, censure, direction to state agencies.
– Writ petitions: seek mandamus to compel ECI action or to restrain state officials from executing actions violating MCC.
– Criminal complaints / FIR: where offences under IPC or RPA are made out (e.g., bribery, undue influence).
– Election petition: pursue voiding of election results or disqualification if conduct amounts to corrupt practice. Note strict limitation periods and procedural requirements (service, pre‑trial steps, etc.).

Landmark Judgments

• Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294
• Principle: The Court recognized the imperative of transparency in elections and supported regulatory steps to enhance informed choice by voters. While this case deals primarily with disclosure (criminal antecedents/asset disclosure), its spirit empowers the ECI’s supervisory measures (including MCC) to ensure fair electoral competition. For practitioners, ADR demonstrates the Court’s willingness to uphold administrative measures that strengthen electoral integrity.
• Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (commonly cited, Supreme Court election jurisprudence on misuse of state machinery)
• Principle: Supreme Court jurisprudence in election matters has repeatedly emphasized that the ruling party must not use the instrumentality of the State to secure votes. Where the State machinery or incumbency advantages are used improperly, the Court has not hesitated to order strong remedial measures (directions to ECI, restraining orders, or even countermanding polls in extreme cases). Practitioners should read such decisions for the Court’s reasoning on proportional remedies — not all MCC breaches suffice for countermanding; the breach must materially affect the fairness of the poll.
  Note on jurisprudence: The Supreme Court has consistently recognized the ECI’s wide supervisory powers under Article 324 to issue codes like the MCC and to take effective measures to ensure free and fair elections. High Court precedents (Delhi HC, Bombay HC, etc.) are replete with orders enforcing MCC obligations — these orders are often immediate, pragmatic and fact‑driven.

Strategic Considerations for Practitioners

Offensive strategy (when representing complainant)
– First 24–72 hours are critical: preserve evidence (video, digital metadata, press cuttings), prepare a succinct complaint to ECI with the evidence bundle and a clear relief map (take‑down, censure, temporary campaign restraint).
– Choose the forum smartly: ECI is the natural first port; if ECI is slow or helpless, seek High Court writ relief (urgent interim directions can be obtained). Remember procedural pre‑requisites for election petitions — do not miss the statutory window.
– Link MCC breach to statutory offence: Where possible, frame the breach also as a corrupt practice under S.123 RPA or an IPC offence. This increases the gravity of your relief and opens the path to election petition or criminal prosecution.
– Tactical use of RTI: to obtain government advertisements/payments and justify misuse of public funds — a powerful evidentiary tool.
– Forge a contemporaneous narrative: MCC complaints are often political; courts & ECI favour precise, cogent documentation over media noise. Avoid over‑reliance on press reports alone.

Defensive strategy (when representing accused/candidates/government)
– Keep detailed compliance records: logs of events, permissions, communications, disclaimers on advertisements, social media policies and memos showing line between party and state resources.
– Challenge locus and timing: prove either absence of knowledge, or that action falls outside MCC timelines (e.g., prior to schedule notification).
– Technical compliance with MCC: removal of offending material upon notice, prompt public clarification/apology where appropriate, and reliance on bona fide mistake or fair comment defences.
– Avoid escalation: swift cooperation with ECI often neutralises political damage; prolonged contest with ECI attracts courts’ strictures.

Common pitfalls to avoid
– Delay in action: late complaints to ECI or High Court are frequently dismissed on grounds of laches or political mala fides.
– Weak evidentiary foundation: inability to authenticate social‑media posts or ads is a frequent cause of failure.
– Over‑reliance on MCC as a standalone remedy: MCC is an administrative code—where a statutory remedy exists (RPA/IPC) frame your pleadings accordingly.
– Failure to preserve chain of custody for digital evidence: courts require proper certification and preservation for social media/electronic proof.
– Treating ECI orders as final in all respects: ECI can issue robust directions, but judicial review remains open — anticipate appeals and prepare to litigate in High Court/Supreme Court if required.

Conclusion

The MCC is the operational backbone of electoral fairness in India. For practitioners, the MCC is simultaneously an administrative and an evidentiary instrument: it gives immediate administrative remedies via the ECI and forms the factual predicate for statutory causes of action under the Representation of the People Act and the IPC. Successful use of the MCC in practice depends on early, documentary, and forensic evidence collection; precise framing of the complaint (administrative vs statutory); tactical choice of forum; and a readiness to translate an MCC violation into statutory relief where appropriate. Mastery of the MCC therefore requires not just knowledge of its clauses, but a disciplined evidence practice, familiarity with ECI procedures, and strategic litigation planning calibrated to the strict timelines and remedies of electoral law.