That was BJP’s Narendra Modi Campaigning against the opposition, in an election rally.
And this was PM Modi’s address to the nation.
Spot the difference? Because I couldn't.
That is exactly the issue.
One was clearly a campaign speech. The other was delivered as an official address, using state-funded platforms, while the Model Code of Conduct was in force.
And yet, the tone, the targets, and the messaging did not really change.
Let’s be clear- The Prime Minister is speaking during an election- so he is speaking as a political leader and using the weight of his office?
But that is a line which is not supposed to blur during an election.
It is not optional. It is central to how elections are supposed to function.
And that is exactly what the Election Commission of India is meant to safeguard, ensuring that state resources are not used to tilt the field.
The ECI is already under scrutiny for how it is handling the Special Intensive Revision of voter rolls in West Bengal, where lakhs of people have been deleted from the rolls and they are struggling to be added back.
So this is not just about one speech.
It is about how the referee- which is the Election commission of india- is responding.
Let me explain.
Elections aren’t just about rallies, speeches, or who wins. They’re also about the rules that ensure the contest itself is fair. The Model Code of Conduct is one such safeguard, meant to keep power in check during elections.
The media is responsible for keeping a close eye on how these rules are applied, to question institutions when needed, and to examine what it means for voters on the ground. And that’s exactly what we are doing right now. But you should also ask yourself, how many media houses are actually doing the same?
This is precisely why independent media matters now more than ever. And we can continue doing this as long as you do your part, to keep supporting us. So scan the QR code on your screen and contribute to Let Me Explain.
Let’s start with what actually happened.
On April 18 while the Model Code of Conduct was in force, Narendra Modi delivered a national address. This was broadcast on Doordarshan, Sansad TV, and All India Radio, all of which are funded by public money and function as state platforms.
Now, a national address is not just another speech. It carries the authority of the office and the reach of the state, which is exactly why its use during elections is tightly restricted.
But when you look at what was said, the nature of the speech becomes important.
The PM mentioned the principal opposition party the Congress 59 times.
Women were mentioned 45 times and reservations 11 times.
The DMK was mentioned 6 times, TMC 7 times and Samajwadi party 9 times.
The PM accused these parties of female foeticide. He specifically said DMK and TMC have spoiled the chances of more Tamils and more Bengalis reaching Parliament. He blamed the Samajwadi Party of trampling Lohia’s dreams.
This was not indirect messaging. It was a clear political attack.
The question is not whether a Prime Minister can criticise the opposition. That happens in every election. The real question is whether he can do that using the machinery of the state during an election period.
The Model Code of Conduct is very clear on this point.
It says the party in power cannot use official machinery for campaigning. It also says ministers must not combine official communication with electioneering. And importantly, it prohibits the use of public-funded media for partisan advantage.
Now place the April 18 speech against these rules.
It was delivered in an official capacity.
It was broadcast using state media.
And it contained direct political messaging.
That combination is exactly what the Code is designed to prevent.
More than 700 citizens wrote to the Election Commission of India with a formal complaint. This included former civil servants, academics, activists, and public figures like Najeeb Jung, E.A.S. Sarma, Zoya Hasan, Jayati Ghosh, and Yogendra Yadav.
They point to specific provisions of the Model Code and argue that:
The speech created an uneven playing field
The signatories want the Election Commission to examine the speech, review its content, and assess how it was broadcast. They ask for corrective action if violations are found.
And then comes the key demand.
If the speech had prior approval, then equal airtime must be given to opposition parties on the same platforms.
Because without that, access to state media becomes a political advantage that only one side enjoys.
The Election Commission is not powerless. It has significant authority under Article 324, and it has used these powers in past elections when it chose to act.
In a case like this, the Commission had several options.
It could have issued a notice to the Prime Minister asking for an explanation.
It could have directed that the broadcast be removed or restricted, especially if it found misuse of state media.
It could have ordered equal airtime for opposition parties, which would have helped restore balance.
It could have issued a public censure, making it clear that such conduct crosses the line.
And in stronger cases, the EC has the power to restrict a leader from campaigning for a period of time.
All of these are established reprimands.
None of them required new rules.
The question is not whether the EC had the power.
The question is whether has the will to use it.
In previous elections, opposition parties have repeatedly argued that the Election Commission has been slower to act on complaints involving the Prime Minister compared to others.
There have been instances where opposition leaders received quick notices for their speeches, while complaints against the Prime Minister took longer or did not lead to any action.
It is easy to reduce this to a political fight, but the issue runs deeper.
A Prime Minister campaigning is normal.
A Prime Minister using a government platform to campaign during an election is not.
That distinction is what protects the idea of a level playing field.
And let’s not forget that the scrutiny on the Election Commission of India is not limited to how it handled the Prime Minister’s speech.
What is unfolding in West Bengal around the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, of voter rolls raises a deeper concern.
This is about who gets to vote.
And multiple ground reports by Newslaundry suggest the process has been far from routine.
The most serious concern is disproportionate deletions.
Reports indicate that names were removed at scale, often affecting migrant workers, minority communities, and economically weaker groups. In several areas, exclusions appear clustered rather than random.
Another thing that stands out is that many affected people are not new or unverified voters.
These are individuals who have voted in previous elections. They have voter IDs issued by the system itself. And yet, they are suddenly missing from the rolls.
Even documentation does not seem to protect voters.
People have Aadhaar cards, voter IDs, and other official documents, and still find their names deleted.
If official documents are not enough to secure your place on the voter roll, then what is?
And all this is being done under the garb of a narrative that this was to exclude infiltrators and outsiders.
On one side, you have a Prime Minister accused of using a state platform for political messaging.
On the other, you have allegations of deliberate voter exclusion
Different issues. Same referee.
The Election Commission.
A referee who urgently needs to act,
For suggestions and feedback, write to lme@thenewsminute.com
Like Pooja’s LME? Support the show: https://rzp.io/rzp/support-lme
Like our journalism? Become a subscriber: https://www.thenewsminute.com/subscription
Produced by Megha Mukundan, Script by Pooja Prasanna, Camera by Ajay R, Edit by Nikhil Sekhar ET