Electoral reforms

1. Constitutional framework and the reform agenda

Electoral reform is not confined to polling-day arrangements. It covers the entire electoral cycle: registration, nominations, campaigning, political finance, voting, counting and dispute resolution. Its central challenge is to reconcile administrative efficiency with political equality, meaningful competition and public confidence. India elects Lok Sabha and State Assembly representatives through single-member constituencies using the first-past-the-post system. This provides a clear constituency link but can produce substantial differences between vote shares and seat shares.

Article 324 gives the Election Commission of India constitutional authority over national and State-level elections. Articles 327 and 328 empower Parliament and State legislatures respectively to legislate on elections, subject to constitutional provisions. Article 329 generally channels challenges to completed elections through election petitions rather than litigation interrupting the electoral process. Municipal and panchayat elections are supervised by State Election Commissions under Articles 243ZA and 243K, not by the Election Commission of India.

Major reform inputs include the Dinesh Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms, 1990; the Indrajit Gupta Committee on State Funding of Elections, 1998; the Law Commission’s 170th Report, 1999 and 255th Report, 2015; and Election Commission recommendations. Their proposals are not automatically law. An examination answer should separate constitutional amendments, statutory changes, judicial directions and administrative initiatives.

• Core objectives: accurate rolls, equal opportunity, informed voting, transparent finance and impartial enforcement.
• A useful test: does a reform improve participation and accountability without disproportionately restricting political freedom?

2. Election administration, technology and participation

Institutional independence requires secure tenure, credible appointments and operational autonomy. Article 324 protects the Chief Election Commissioner against removal except in the manner and on the grounds applicable to a Supreme Court judge. Other Election Commissioners cannot be removed except on the Chief Election Commissioner’s recommendation. Under the 2023 appointment law, the selection committee comprises the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, with provision for the leader of the largest opposition party where necessary.

Electronic Voting Machines and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails seek to combine efficient counting with verifiability. VVPAT allows voters to view a printed slip, which remains inside the machine rather than being handed to them. In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, 2024, the Supreme Court rejected demands for universal VVPAT counting and a return to paper ballots, while issuing additional safeguards. Technology must be assessed through auditability, security procedures and transparent verification, not through either unquestioning acceptance or unsupported suspicion.

Participation reforms include four qualifying dates for voter registration under the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021, accessible polling stations and postal-ballot facilities for specified categories. Eligible overseas electors generally must still vote in person. Proposed remote voting arrangements should not be confused with an implemented nationwide facility.

• The Model Code of Conduct is not itself a statute; conduct covered by it may also violate enforceable election or criminal law.
• SVEEP promotes voter education, while cVIGIL enables reporting of specified election-related violations.

3. Political finance and campaign expenditure

Political finance reform addresses the tension between legitimate campaigning and unequal influence arising from opaque or concentrated donations. Candidate expenditure is subject to prescribed ceilings, accounting requirements and scrutiny. However, political parties do not face an equivalent overall campaign expenditure ceiling. Consequently, candidate-level regulation alone cannot capture the entire financial scale of electoral competition.

In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2024, the Supreme Court invalidated the Electoral Bond Scheme and associated legal changes enabling donor anonymity. It held that non-disclosure violated citizens’ right to information under Article 19(1)(a). The Court also invalidated the removal of the cap on corporate political contributions, identifying the dangers of disproportionate corporate influence. The judgment strengthened the principle that electoral choice requires information about financial relationships between donors and political parties.

Reform options include timely disclosure of donations and expenditure, independent audits, stronger scrutiny of related-party transactions and better tracking of digital advertising. The Indrajit Gupta Committee supported limited state funding in kind for recognised parties, subject to conditions. State funding is not a complete solution: without internal accounts and effective enforcement, public assistance could coexist with concealed private spending. Disclosure rules must also consider legitimate privacy concerns of small donors.

• Distinguish candidate expenditure limits from political-party expenditure regulation.
• Paid news conceals campaign promotion as independent reporting; undisclosed digital promotion presents related monitoring problems.

4. Criminalisation, disclosure and voter choice

Criminalisation weakens public trust and can enable intimidation, patronage and misuse of office. Nevertheless, a pending criminal case is not equivalent to guilt. Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 links disqualification to conviction for specified offences and to prescribed sentences. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India, 2013, the Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4), which had protected sitting legislators from immediate disqualification in certain circumstances.

Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, 2002 and People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, 2003 established the voter’s right to relevant candidate information. Election affidavits disclose criminal antecedents, assets, liabilities and educational qualifications. In Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India, 2018, the Court declined to create a new disqualification merely on framing of charges, but required publicity of criminal antecedents and urged legislative action. Subsequent directions required parties to explain their selection of candidates with criminal cases rather than rely merely on electoral winnability.

The 2013 PUCL judgment introduced the None of the Above option to protect secrecy for voters rejecting all candidates. NOTA does not ordinarily invalidate the election or require a fresh poll if it receives the most votes. Proposals for disqualification at the charge-framing stage require safeguards against politically motivated prosecution, alongside speedy trials and reliable disclosure.

• Candidate eligibility, disclosure obligations and political accountability are distinct reform instruments.
• An acquittal or stay of conviction has different legal consequences from bail or a mere suspension of sentence.

5. Representation, party democracy and structural proposals

Internal party democracy influences who can realistically contest elections. Transparent membership, credible organisational elections and accountable candidate selection could reduce excessive centralisation and dynastic control. The Election Commission registers parties under Section 29A of the 1951 Act, but registration does not confer unlimited power to regulate their internal affairs or deregister them. Recognition as a national or State party is a separate matter governed by the election-symbols framework.

The Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023 provides one-third reservation for women in the Lok Sabha, State Assemblies and the Delhi Legislative Assembly. Its implementation is linked to delimitation after publication of figures from the first census taken after the amendment’s commencement. It should therefore not be presented as reservation already applied to the 2024 Lok Sabha election.

Simultaneous elections are defended as a way to reduce repeated expenditure and administrative disruption. Critics highlight federalism, premature dissolution and the risk of national issues overshadowing State concerns. The Ram Nath Kovind-led High-Level Committee submitted recommendations in 2024; recommendations must not be treated as enacted arrangements. Alternatives such as proportional representation or a mixed system could improve vote-seat correspondence but introduce trade-offs involving coalition formation, ballot complexity and constituency accountability.

• Priority reforms should combine enforceable financial transparency, independent administration, inclusive registration and faster election adjudication.
• Evaluate structural proposals against federalism, representative fairness, government stability and voter choice.

Previous year questions

Practice questions