A constitutional and legal controversy has arisen following Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s April 18, 2026 national broadcast on Doordarshan, Sansad TV, and All India Radio, in which he named four Opposition parties and urged women voters in Tamil Nadu and West Bengal to punish them at the polls for defeating the 131st Constitution Amendment Bill (the Women’s Reservation Bill) in the Lok Sabha. A writ petition (Diary No. 24600 of 2026) filed by former Congress MP T.N. Prathapan is now pending before the Supreme Court, raising fundamental questions about whether the use of state-funded broadcast media by the incumbent Prime Minister for partisan electoral messaging violates the Model Code of Conduct and the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The Election Commission of India has taken no action on complaints received regarding the broadcast, and this silence has itself become a subject of constitutional scrutiny. The case cuts to the heart of the tension between democratic accountability and the incumbent’s advantage in elections — a tension that is particularly acute in India, where the Prime Minister has command over the entire public broadcasting apparatus of the nation.
💡 Get AI-powered exam prep on your phone!
For UPSC aspirants, this is a rich topic spanning electoral law, constitutional provisions governing free and fair elections, the role and independence of the Election Commission, the scope of the Model Code of Conduct, and the interpretive challenges posed by technological changes to election regulation designed for an earlier era.
Background and Context: The Model Code of Conduct and Its Origins
The Model Code of Conduct was first drafted by the Kerala government in 1960 to govern conduct during State elections. The Election Commission of India formalized it in 1968, revised it in 1974, and crucially added Part VII — governing the “party in power” — in 1979. Former Chief Election Commissioner T.N. Seshan is credited with giving the Code teeth from 1991 onwards through rigorous enforcement.
Five Important Key Points
- Part VII of the Model Code of Conduct prohibits the party in power from combining official government resources with electioneering, using government machinery for campaign work, or misusing publicly funded mass media for partisan coverage during the election period.
- The Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) described Article 324 as “a reservoir of power” that enables the Election Commission to act where Parliament has not legislated, establishing a broad constitutional basis for MCC enforcement.
- Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 prohibits appeals to voters on the grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language, but the April 18 broadcast appealed on grounds of gender and party affiliation — categories not listed in the statute’s five enumerated nouns, creating a technical limitation on direct statutory enforcement.
- Section 123(7) of the RPA, 1951 makes it a corrupt practice to obtain or procure the assistance of “government servants” — including gazetted officers — for furthering electoral prospects, and the petition argues that the use of Doordarshan (whose personnel are government employees) falls within this prohibition.
- The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harbans Singh Jalal v. Union of India (1997) held that the MCC comes into effect from the moment of announcement of the election schedule, meaning that the Prime Minister’s broadcast — which occurred during the active election period — was unambiguously governed by the Code.
The Constitutional Architecture: Article 324 and the Election Commission
Article 324 of the Constitution vests the superintendence, direction, and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections in the Election Commission of India. The Supreme Court has interpreted this provision as a plenary grant of power to the ECI to act in situations unforeseen by legislation — what the Court in Mohinder Singh Gill called a “reservoir of power.” This means the MCC’s open-textured provisions are not a limitation but an enablement: the ECI can act wherever the statute is silent if the conduct undermines free and fair elections.
The ECI’s silence in the face of a textbook Part VII violation — the use of Doordarshan for partisan messaging by the Prime Minister — thus represents not a legal inability to act but a political choice not to act. This is constitutionally significant because it suggests either that the ECI does not consider the broadcast a violation, or that institutional pressures have deterred action. Either interpretation raises serious concerns about the independence of the Commission.
The Statutory Framework: Section 123 and Its Limits
The Representation of the People Act, 1951 lists specific categories of “corrupt practices” in Section 123. Section 123(3), as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017) by a 4:3 majority of a seven-judge bench, extends the prohibition on appeals to religion, race, caste, community, or language to cover appeals in relation to the voter as well as the candidate.
However, the April 18 broadcast was framed around gender (specifically appealing to women voters) and party affiliation (naming Opposition parties). Neither of these categories is listed in Section 123(3)’s five enumerated nouns. This is where the petitioner’s invocation of Section 123(7) — the workforce clause — becomes analytically important. The argument that publicly funded broadcasters and PMO personnel constitute “government servants” whose assistance was procured for electoral purposes is novel but legally coherent.
The Public Broadcasting Question: Doordarshan as a Campaign Platform
Doordarshan reaches approximately 600 million viewers across India and is funded by public money. Its use for partisan electoral messaging by an incumbent is fundamentally different from an election rally speech or a social media post: it carries the authority and reach of the state itself. The public broadcaster’s credibility and universality make it a uniquely powerful tool for electoral influence — which is precisely why Part VII of the MCC prohibits its misuse.
The absence of any statutory independent broadcasting regulator comparable to the UK’s Ofcom creates a structural vulnerability: there is no institution other than the ECI with both the mandate and the authority to ensure that public broadcasters are not used as campaign tools. The ECI’s choice not to act therefore leaves the entire regulatory space unguarded.
Way Forward
The Election Commission must issue a formal ruling on the pending complaints regarding the April 18 broadcast, explaining its legal reasoning whether it finds a violation or not. The Supreme Court, in hearing the pending petition, should clarify the scope of Section 123(7) in relation to public broadcasters and should issue guidelines on the permissible use of Doordarshan, Sansad TV, and AIR during election periods. Parliament should consider amending the RPA, 1951 to include gender-based electoral appeals within the scope of Section 123(3)’s prohibited categories. An independent statutory Media Authority should be established to regulate the use of public broadcasting during elections, insulated from executive influence. The ECI should also codify detailed guidelines on digital and broadcast media use during elections as part of a modernized MCC.
Relevance for UPSC and SSC Examinations
This topic is relevant for UPSC GS-II (Polity — Elections, Representation of the People Act, Role of Election Commission, Constitutional Provisions), GS-IV (Ethics in Governance — Institutional Integrity). For SSC examinations, it covers Polity and Current Affairs in General Awareness. Key terms aspirants must remember include Model Code of Conduct, Article 324, Section 123 RPA 1951, Abhiram Singh case, Mohinder Singh Gill case, Doordarshan, Part VII of MCC, and corrupt practices in elections.