Bureaucracy Shouldn't Snuff Out Dissent

It is worrisome that officers do not air their views even during internal meetings. Yet, dissent shouldn’t turn into a public spat

- Anil Swarup

The last General Elections were different. Not in the sense of their outcomes but what came to be known about the internal deliberations within the Election Commission. There haven’t been very many occasions in the past when the differences between the Election Commissioners come out in the open when the election process is underway.

One of the Election Commissioners had apparently dissented when issues relating to violation of the Model Code of Conduct by Narendra Modi came up for consideration before the Commission. The issue was highlighted in some segments of the media.

The episode (if it indeed was one) also raises the following issues that are not related to the merits of the case but to the idea of dissent and the manner in which dissent is expressed: Should there be dissent/ difference of opinion? What is the purpose of dissent/difference of opinion? Is there dissent/difference of opinion in the bureaucratic domain? Should there be a public display of dissent/difference of opinion?

In the Bhima-Koregaon case, Justice DY Chandrachud clearly articulated the need for dissent: “Dissent is a symbol of vibrant democracy”. No one will doubt that it is. Democracy thrives on difference of opinion. Debates are the essence of a democracy. There can’t be a debate if everyone agrees on an issue.

Long before the Koregaon case, the purpose of dissent was articulated pretty succinctly by Justice HR Khanna way back in 1976 in the ADM, Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla (AIR1976 SC 1207) case, when it was being argued that the right to approach the court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights was suspended during Emergency.