Then there's the "plenary powers" claimed by the EC under Article 324. A misconception prevails that these "plenary" or absolute powers are not subject to any constraint.

A Supreme Court judgment of 1984 called the bluff there. In May 1982, during the elections for the Kerala legislative assembly, the electronic voting system was introduced at some booths in one constituency. This was done under EC directives issued under Article 324. After the election, the validity of the electronic system was challenged through an election petition.

The Supreme Court set aside the election of the successful candidate and ordered re-poll in the booths where the machines had been used. The court ruled that the EC's order directing that ballots be cast using machines lacked jurisdiction. It held the EC could not change the voting system since this matter fell within the domain of Parliament. The court interpreted the word "ballot" used in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as not including the casting of votes by mechanical process. The court construed Article 324 as conferring only executive, but not legislative, powers on the EC.

Legislative powers in respect of elections to Parliament and the state legislatures vest in Parliament and no other body, and the EC would come into the picture only if no provision has been made by Parliament in regard to these elections. When Parliament or a state legislature makes any valid law relating to or in connection with elections, the EC has to act in conformity with, not in violation of, such provisions.

The court disagreed with the contention that the Constitution gives complete power to the EC under Article 324 for the conduct of elections. The Constitution could never have intended to make the EC an apex body to give any direction in respect of the conduct of elections and conferring on it legislative powers, ignoring Parliament altogether.

The court went on to say where the law is silent, the EC no doubt has the plenary powers under Article 324 to give any direction in respect to the conduct of elections. But when the EC submits a particular direction to the government for approval (as required by the rules), it is not open to the EC to go ahead with the implementation of that direction at "its own sweet will" even though government approval is not given.

It is because of the above Supreme Court judgment that the Representation of People Act, 1951 was amended by Parliament in 1988 to allow the EC to adopt voting machines, electronic or otherwise, for elections.

Clearly, the EC's direction to anyone cannot be at "its own sweet will" unsupported by law. Else, Mr Gill might tomorrow ban a voter in a saffron sari from entering the polling booth!

Lastly, there's that utterly, butterly Model Code of conduct for the Guidance of Political Parties and Candidates. There's one laughable prescription in it that reflects the high horse of morality it seeks to ride. It says, "All political parties and candidates shall refrain from serving or distributing liquor on polling day and during the 24 preceding it." My, my, not even a chhota peg for Vajpayee on election eve at Advani's home!

That particular clause of the ode may well have emanated from Mahatma Gandhi's pen, but the Model Code was actually formulated much, much later. In his letter printed in The Hindu of August 20, 1999, former EC secretary K P G Kutty says the code was evolved in 1968. However, according to a document titled A Compendium of Election Commission's Orders on Model Code of Conduct issued by the Maharashtra Chief Electoral Officer to candidates for the current elections, the Model Code was formulated in January 1991. In black and white, under the signature of T N Seshan, the then Chief Election Commissioner of India.

Although the newspaper has not intimated any correction in Kutty's letter till the moment of writing this, the 1991 date seems the authentic one, considering that all CECs, till the advent of Seshan, Tughlaq I, were unobtrusive and non-egoistic men, content with working more and shouting less.

Anyway, the vital issue of the Model Code is that, as Kutty confessed in his above letter, "It is a gentlemen's agreement and has no legal teeth but has only a persuasive force." Even Gill, Tughlaq II, has conceded as much a couple of times on television, albeit sheepishly. How comically ironic therefore that our entire electioneering lot has seemed more frightened of the Model Code than of the India Penal Code.

But that's not the only irony. In its earlier referred letter of January 17, 1996, the EC had the gumption to warn that "gross infringement of the Model Code... will be visited with grave consequences as considered appropriate by the Commission."

However the tragi-comic irony of this Model Code is what is stated in an article published in The Hindu of August 24, 1999. The author of that piece was Naresh Gupta, currently chief electoral officer and secretary to the Tamil Nadu government.

Gupta says "if the [Election] Commission is satisfied.... that a political party... has shown or is showing defiance... of the Model Code of Conduct.... [the EC] may... either suspend.... or withdraw recognition of such party."

Gupta avers the action he talks of will be as per paragraph 16 A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. How the dickens can there be a punitive link between a statutory Order on Election Symbols and a Model Code of Conduct for elections? We should be enlightened on that by Tughlaq I or Tughlaq II. Or even by the "esteemed" newspaper that published Gupta's article.

Meanwhile, if Naresh Gupta can function as Gill's chief electoral officer, why not Arvind Lavakare or Monica Lewinsky? Manohar Gill or Pramod Mahajan should tell us that. Or even Sonia Gandhi.

Tailpiece: If M S Gill was peeved with L K Advani until his personal security status was restored from Y category to Super Z category, G V Krishnamurthy, the other election commissioner, ought to be peeved with the home minister for being denied a level playing field.

That is probably why the hurt GVK circulates a personal bio-data of nearly 2,000 words among hosts who invite him for delivering lectures. And never mind if that fact leaves Gill without a level playing field.

Arvind Lavakare