New Delhi, Oct. 26: A parliamentary panel has sought to know the law under which the Election Commission has issued guidelines to regulate the use of social media in campaigning ahead of the year-end Assembly polls.

“Issuing of such elaborate instructions do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Election Commission,” said Shantaram Naik, the chairperson of the standing committee of the department of personnel, public grievances, law and justice.

“Therefore, to bring in transparency in the working of the commission, as they expect similar transparency from political parties and their candidates, it is absolutely essential that the commission should quote the law at every stage.”

The Election Commission had yesterday brought campaigning on social media within the ambit of the model code of conduct.

Under the guidelines, parties and candidates would have to furnish details of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube accounts used for campaigning to the poll panel, along with statements of expenses incurred. All political ads posted on such sites would have to be vetted by the commission.

Naik said political parties should have been consulted before the panel decided to do such a thing. Since platforms such as Facebook, Twitter or YouTube did not exist when the code was framed, how had they been brought under it, he questioned.

He has requested deputy election commissioner Vinod Zutshi to quote in detail the provisions of the law under which this has been done.

The poll panel had yesterday quoted a 2004 Supreme Court order for electronic media to explain why the rules were applicable to social media also. Since “social media websites are also electronic media by definition”, the instructions shall apply to them also, the panel had said.

Naik said by imposing the model code on social media posts, the panel had “created a new law” not yet passed by Parliament or forming a part of any rule. He claimed the Centre always framed rules in consultation with the poll panel.

He said the panel had not even quoted Article 324 anywhere in its instructions. Even if it had, it would still be inadequate, he added, explaining that the article gave the panel only supervisory jurisdiction in the matter of conducting elections and preparation of electoral rolls.

“We cannot fight with the Election Commission but we have told them to quote relevant provisions of law when they pass instructions,” Naik iterated over phone from Goa. “Zutshi told me he will convey the concerns to the chief election commissioner.”

Election commissioner H.S. Brahma said from Jaipur the commission would examine the panel’s request.

Saurabh Vyas of Political Edge, a political research firm, said some regulation was necessary to stem “negativity” on social media. “If the panel is doing it to regulate the way campaigns are carried out, we welcome it. We will have to go through the fine print of its instructions before we can comment,” he said.