The Model Code of Conduct remains a toothless tiger when it comes to the party in power using public resources for electoral campaigns. Critically examine with reference to constitutional provisions and recent controversies.

Q. The Model Code of Conduct remains a toothless tiger when it comes to the party in power using public resources for electoral campaigns. Critically examine with reference to constitutional provisions and recent controversies. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The Model Code of Conduct (MCC), issued by the Election Commission under Article 324, devotes its Part VII exclusively to the "party in power", barring ministers from combining official visits with electioneering and from using official machinery, transport or public funds for campaign advantage [1]. The charge of toothlessness is largely, though not entirely, justified.

Why the criticism holds - No statutory force: the MCC is a consensual code evolved through party consensus; a violation is punishable only where it independently attracts the penal law or the Representation of the People Act, 1951 [2]. - Structural asymmetry: only the ruling party commands public broadcasters, official machinery and the exchequer. Part VII's bar on monopolising rest houses, helipads and government transport is verifiable; misuse of state media for political messaging is far harder to pin down [1]. - Recent controversy: the Prime Minister's April 2026 national address, carried live on Doordarshan, Sansad TV and All India Radio, named four Opposition parties and appealed to women voters in Tamil Nadu and West Bengal days before polling — following the defeat of the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 in Lok Sabha [3]. No sanction followed. - Discretionary enforcement: notices and censures dominate; the severest sanction, suspension of recognition under Para 16A, Election Symbols Order, 1968, has never been applied to a ruling national party. Adjudication typically outlasts the campaign itself.

Why "toothless" overstates the case - The Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill (1978) held Article 324 to be a "reservoir of power" where the law is silent, giving the ECI ample authority to act [4]. - Operative from the date of schedule announcement to declaration of results, the Code has demonstrably curbed transfers, fresh scheme announcements and freebie promises, and campaign bans have been imposed on individual leaders [2].

The MCC is thus better described as a strong norm with weak sanctions. Codifying Part VII's core prohibitions into the RP Act, fixing time-bound disposal of complaints, and insulating public broadcasters during the operative period would convert moral suasion into enforceable accountability — the true guarantee of the free and fair elections that Article 324 envisions.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Election Commission of India — Model Code of Conduct, Part VII "Party in Power" — restrictions on ministers, official machinery, transport, public spaces 2. PRS Legislative Research — "Model Code of Conduct and the 2019 General Elections" — non-statutory character, 1979 party-in-power provisions, operative period 3. PRS Legislative Research — The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 — Bill introduced April 16, 2026 and negatived in Lok Sabha 4. Supreme Court of India — Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 2 SCR 272 — Article 324 as a "reservoir of power"