By Suresh Unnithan
It seems all is not well for Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Former Maharashtra Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan has raised serious charges against Modi for violation of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), if proved in the court could lead to critical consequences for the ruling BJP and Modi. While talking to the media on July 30, 2025, Chavan said that he had filed a complaint to the state election commission against Prime Minister Narendra Modi for serious violations of the Model Code of Conduct in 2020 during the flagging-off of the 100th Kisan Rail on December 28, 2020. This event coincided with Gram Panchayat elections in Maharashtra and Assembly elections in West Bengal. Chavan claimed the event, broadcast nationwide without prior Election Commission or district administration approval, and was an attempt to influence voters, constituting a “blatant breach” of the MCC.
A Congress worker close to Chavan, Prafull Kadam, filed a complaint with detailed evidence, and the Election Commission acknowledged the violation, but only issued a warning to the Railway Administration sparing PM Modi.
Talking to the media a day ago Chavan argued that the leniency shown in the MCC violation case contrasts with strict actions taken against former PM Indira Gandhi and Shiv Sena founder Balasaheb Thackeray for similar breaches. The congress leader said that he “plans to approach the High Court to seek action, including the revocation of Modi’s Lok Sabha membership.”
Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, violations of the MCC can lead to penalties, but disqualification from Parliament typically requires severe infractions, such as proven corrupt practices like bribery, voter intimidation, or misuse of government machinery for electoral gain. Indira Gandhi was disqualified in 1975 by a court for misusing government resources during her 1971 election campaign, a case that involved specific evidence of electoral malpractice. Chavan’s allegation hinges on the Kisan Rail event being an attempt to influence voters, but proving intent and direct electoral impact in court could be challenging.
In 1975, Indira Gandhi, then Prime Minister of India, was disqualified from holding elected office for six years by the Allahabad High Court. The case, brought by socialist leader Raj Narain, challenged her 1971 election victory in Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh. The court found her guilty of electoral malpractices- misusing government machinery by having her election agent, Yashpal Kapoor, a government servant. There were also charges of using state government officials to build rostrums and arrange electricity for her campaign events.
Based on evidence Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha ruled her election void, barring Mrs Gandhi from contesting elections for six years. This verdict led to significant political turmoil, prompting Gandhi to declare a state of Emergency on June 25, 1975. However, the Supreme Court later granted a conditional stay, allowing her to remain Prime Minister but barring her from parliamentary voting. The 39th Constitutional Amendment was passed to nullify the verdict’s effect, and the Election Commission revised rules to limit such disqualifications.
Balasaheb Thackeray, the Shiv Sena chief, faced legal action for violating the Model Code of Conduct during the 1987 Vile Parle by-election in Maharashtra. He was accused of making inflammatory speeches that appealed to Hindu voters to support the Shiv Sena-BJP candidate, inciting communal sentiments. Specifically:
Thackeray’s speeches during the campaign were alleged to have promoted enmity between communities by appealing to religious sentiments, violating Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which prohibits using religion to influence voters.
The Bombay High Court, in 1989, found him guilty of corrupt electoral practices. The court upheld complaints that his speeches incited voters on religious grounds.
As a result, Thackeray was barred from voting or contesting elections for six years, from 1987 to 1993, by the Election Commission of India.
The Supreme Court later upheld this decision in 1995, reinforcing the prohibition on using religion for electoral gains. Thackeray’s fiery rhetoric, a hallmark of his political style, was central to the case, marking a significant precedent in Indian electoral law.
According to legal experts “The strength of Chavan’s case depends on the evidence presented, like documents, video footage, or witness testimonies.” Kadam’s complaint reportedly includes. “For the court to consider disqualification, the evidence must demonstrate that Modi’s actions directly violated MCC rules and influenced voters in a manner akin to corrupt practices. The fact that the Election Commission acknowledged a violation but only cautioned the Railway Administration suggests the breach may not have been deemed severe enough to warrant action against Modi personally. Courts typically require a high threshold of proof for disqualification, and the lack of prior Election Commission action against Modi could weaken the case.”
However, Chavan cites the cases of Indira Gandhi and Balasaheb Thackeray, where strict actions were taken. Gandhi’s disqualification was overturned by the Supreme Court, and Thackeray faced a six-year ban from voting and contesting elections in 1987 for appealing to religious sentiments, a different type of violation. These cases suggest that disqualification is possible but rare and requires clear legal grounds. “Courts may hesitate to disqualify a sitting Prime Minister without overwhelming evidence, given the potential for significant political upheaval.”
According to a senior lawyer who has handled MCC violation related cases “The Election Commission’s inaction against Modi, despite acknowledging a violation, could be scrutinized in court. The Commission’s decision to limit action to the Railway Administration may indicate that it viewed the violation as administrative rather than a direct act by Modi. Courts may defer to the Election Commission’s discretion unless clear evidence of arbitrariness or bias is proven.”
Another legal expert on election related cases speculated on the possible outcome of the litigation “If Chavan’s case reaches the High Court and is deemed valid, possible outcomes include a directive for the Election Commission to reconsider its decision, a fine, or, in an extreme case, disqualification proceedings. However, disqualification would likely require a prolonged legal process, potentially reaching the Supreme Court, as seen in Gandhi’s case. The likelihood of Modi losing his Lok Sabha seat is low unless the evidence is exceptionally compelling and demonstrates direct intent to manipulate elections.”
By all possibilities, Modi is unlikely to face any immediate political threat or lose his seat unless the court finds irrefutable evidence of MCC violations. However Chavan’s move to the High Court will keep the political pot boiling and will remain a worry for both Prime Minister Modi and his party, the BJP.
