Election Commission, silent on women's scheme in Bihar, stopped 'welfare' in Tamil Nadu

The Election Commission of India (EC) is facing criticism for maintaining silence over the distribution of financial aid to women under Bihar’s Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana (MMRY), even as assembly elections are underway in the State. The scheme, launched in late September by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, promises ₹10,000 each to 75 lakh women beneficiaries. However, opposition parties have accused the government of violating the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and questioned why the EC has not intervened.

The controversy stems from the timing of the rollout. The scheme was unveiled on September 26, and within 10 days—on October 6—the Election Commission announced the Bihar election schedule, setting polling for November 6 and 11 across all 243 constituencies. Critics argue that implementing such a massive cash-assistance programme so close to polling could influence voters, undermining the fairness of the election.

Leaders from the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and the Congress have formally objected to the scheme’s continuation. They contend that the payouts breach the MCC, which restricts governments from announcing or implementing financial benefits once elections are declared. Despite this, the EC has so far issued no directive to halt or delay the disbursements. This perceived inaction has triggered debate over whether the Commission is applying its own code consistently across different States and political contexts.

Contrast with Tamil Nadu precedents

Observers have been quick to point out that the EC’s current silence contrasts sharply with its assertive role in earlier cases in Tamil Nadu. In at least two major instances over the past two decades, the poll body intervened decisively to stop welfare schemes that could be seen as influencing voters.

In 2003, during Jayalalithaa’s tenure as Chief Minister, the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) government replaced a free electricity supply scheme for farmers with a cash reimbursement system. Under the plan, 9.4 lakh small and marginal farmers were to receive between ₹500 and ₹625 twice a year, depending on their pump-set capacity. Hut dwellers were promised ₹100 annually. The government had even issued orders to extend the benefit to more farmers before the 2004 election schedule was announced.

However, once the election process began, then Chief Electoral Officer Mrutyunjay Sarangi advised all District Collectors to suspend the disbursement of these payments until polling was complete. The decision, issued through an official circular on March 22, 2004, was widely viewed as a firm assertion of the EC’s commitment to preventing any form of inducement during elections.

A few years later, in March 2011, the EC again stepped in, this time against the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) government’s flagship free colour television (TV) distribution programme. The DMK had been running the scheme since 2006, and by early 2011, 1.62 crore TV sets had already been distributed, with another nine lakh sets pending. Soon after the EC announced the assembly election schedule, District Collectors were instructed to halt all further distribution until after the elections. The move underscored the Commission’s long-standing policy that even ongoing welfare schemes could not continue once the MCC came into effect.

Question of consistency

These precedents make the EC’s silence in Bihar appear inconsistent. In both Tamil Nadu cases, the schemes were stopped despite being older programmes with established beneficiaries. By contrast, the Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana is a new initiative, launched just weeks before voting began. Analysts note that the timing alone should have triggered scrutiny under the same principles that guided earlier decisions.

Critics suggest that the Commission’s inaction could weaken public trust in its impartiality. “When similar schemes were suspended in Tamil Nadu, the EC was lauded for upholding electoral integrity,” said a senior political observer. “Now, its silence risks creating an impression that its standards change depending on who is in power.”

Supporters of the Bihar government, however, argue that the scheme is part of the State’s long-term women empowerment strategy and not an election gimmick. They point out that it is funded by the State exchequer and not a newly conceived programme timed to coincide with the polls.

Still, the larger question remains: should welfare schemes involving direct cash transfers continue during elections, regardless of intent? For now, the Election Commission’s silence on the Bihar case is amplifying a debate that touches the core of electoral fairness — and the credibility of India’s democratic institutions.