Arguments against Legal status to MCC:

1. The decision making power will go to the Judiciary and thus the swiftness, expedition and promptness in dealing with the cases of violation of MCC will be gone.

2. If MCC is converted into a law, this would mean that a complaint would lie to the police/Magistrate. The procedures involved in judicial proceedings being what they are, a decision on such complaints would most likely come only long after the election is completed.

3. The legal codification of these norms would be a potential nightmare, exposing the entire electoral process to needless litigation. The broad objectives of MCC are best achieved by oversight of an impartial election watchdog.

4. The Election Commission itself is of the view that although statutory back up to the code may make it more effective and strengthen its binding nature, it may complicate the implementation of the code in the middle of elections.

5. Furthermore, it added that the manner in which violations of MCC have been handled by the Election Commission with speed and urgency, proves that the code has stood the test of time. Therefore, it should be left as an established way of enforcing the code.

6. The Department of Legal Affairs and the Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice added that the Model Code of Conduct by its very nomenclature is only a self-regulatory code.

The Election Commission has argued against making the MCC legally binding; stating that elections must be completed within a relatively short time (close to 45 days), and judicial proceedings typically take longer. MCC evolved as part of the ECI’s drive to ensure free and fair elections, and was the result of a consensus among major political parties. It has no statutory backing but carries significant moral weight. Given the practical difficulties emerging from giving MCC statutory backing, another alternative would be to strengthen ECI to deal with contemporary challenges, electoral malpractices, Poll Code violations etc.