Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990)

Topic: Electoral Reforms: Money, Criminalisation and Simultaneous Elections · NCERT: Beyond NCERT

Meaning

The Dinesh Goswami Committee (May 1990) was a government committee on electoral reforms. The V.P. Singh government set it up, and Law Minister Dinesh Goswami chaired it. It proposed:

• appointing the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) after consulting the Chief Justice of India and the Leader of Opposition;
• limited state funding of elections in kind (goods, not cash);
• wider use of EVMs;
• a two-seat cap on candidates, and higher security deposits;
• letting the President or Governor, on the Election Commission's advice, decide anti-defection cases.

It matters because it was the first big government plan for cleaning up elections. Some of its ideas became law in 1996. Others, such as taking CEC appointments out of the government's sole control, keep coming back, most recently in Anoop Baranwal (2023).

Explanation

Who set it up and why

• It was set up in May 1990 by the V.P. Singh government.
• It was chaired by the Law Minister, Dinesh Goswami. So unlike the earlier Tarkunde Committee (a citizens' body), this was a government committee.
• Its main targets were the role of money in elections, non-serious candidates, the independence of the Election Commission of India (ECI), and neutral handling of defection cases.

Main proposals

• How the CEC is appointed
• Article 324(2) leaves the appointment to the President. In practice, that means the government chooses.

• The committee wanted the CEC appointed only after consulting the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Leader of Opposition (LoP).

• Limited state funding in kind

• The state would give things, not cash, such as vehicles, fuel, printing of voter slips and posters.

• The aim was to cut candidates' dependence on black money without handing them public cash.

• Wider use of EVMs (electronic voting machines)

• Section 61A of the RPA 1951 already allowed EVMs. The committee pushed for using them more widely.

• Keeping out non-serious candidates

• A two-seat cap: one candidate may contest from at most two seats.

• Higher security deposits. A security deposit is money a candidate pays when filing nomination and loses if they get too few votes.

• Who decides defection cases

• Under the Tenth Schedule (the anti-defection law, added by the 52nd Amendment, 1985), the Speaker or Chairman of the House decides whether a member has defected. A member found to have defected loses their seat.
• The committee wanted the President (for Parliament) or Governor (for a state) to decide instead, on the ECI's advice.
• Reason: the Speaker usually comes from the ruling party, so they may not be neutral.

Limits

• The committee's report was only advice. Parliament had to pass laws to put it into effect.
• Parliament accepted the low-cost ideas (EVMs, the two-seat cap, deposits). It left out the ideas that would cut the power of the government or the Speaker (CEC appointment, defection decisions). It also left out state funding.

In the Constitution and practice

• Constitutional and legal base: Part XV of the Constitution (Articles 324–329), the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, and the Tenth Schedule.
• What was implemented:
• 1996 amendments to the RPA 1951: the two-seat cap (Section 33(7)) and higher deposits. This was a compromise. The ECI later asked for a one-seat limit, which has not been granted [3].

• EVMs under Section 61A. They have been used nationally since 2004.

• What came back later:

• Defection decisions: the Law Commission's 255th report (2015) repeated the idea that the President or Governor should decide defection cases on the ECI's advice [1]. It is still not law.
• CEC appointment: the 255th report proposed a PM–LoP–CJI committee to appoint the CEC and Election Commissioners (ECs) [1].
• In Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2 March 2023), the Supreme Court ordered that the President appoint the CEC and ECs on the advice of a PM + LoP + CJI committee, until Parliament makes a law [2].

• CEC and Other ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023: the committee became PM + a Union Cabinet Minister + LoP, so the CJI was dropped. The Act also replaced the 1991 Act [2].

• State funding: Goswami, the Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998), the NCRWC and the 2nd ARC all recommended it. It is still not done.

Don't confuse with

• Tarkunde Committee (1974–75): set up by JP's Citizens for Democracy, not by the government. It proposed voting at 18 and a multi-member ECI. Goswami (1990) was a government committee.
• Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998): this committee focused on state funding of elections. Goswami's funding idea was a smaller one: help in kind only.
• Vohra Committee (1993): this one was about links between crime and politicians, not about the electoral process.
• Law Commission 170th report (1999): proposed a party law, a list system, a 5% threshold and deleting the split exception. These were not Goswami ideas.

Prelims Hooks

• Dinesh Goswami Committee = 1990, V.P. Singh government, chaired by the Law Minister.
• It proposed consulting the CJI and LoP on CEC appointment. Today, Article 324(2) still leaves the appointment to the President.
• Two-seat cap = Section 33(7), RPA 1951 (1996). This Goswami idea was implemented. The ECI's one-seat demand is still pending [3].
• Trap: Goswami proposed state funding in kind, not in cash. State funding has not been implemented.
• Defection decisions by the President or Governor on the ECI's advice: first a Goswami idea, repeated in the 255th report (2015) [1]. Not implemented, so the Speaker or Chairman still decides under the Tenth Schedule.
• 2023 Act committee = PM + Union Cabinet Minister + LoP (no CJI), unlike the Anoop Baranwal stop-gap of PM + LoP + CJI [2].

Mains Points

• Independence of the ECI: there is a clear line from Goswami (1990) to the 255th report (2015) [1] to Anoop Baranwal (2023). Each tried to take the power to appoint the CEC away from the government alone. The 2023 Act gives the government a 2:1 majority on the selection committee [2]. So Goswami's aim is only partly met.
• Neutral umpire in defection cases: the Speaker comes from the ruling side, so their decisions under the Tenth Schedule can look biased. Goswami's idea of the President or Governor deciding on the ECI's advice would give a more neutral decision-maker. Parliament has not adopted it, even after the 255th report repeated it [1].
• Gap between advice and action: the reforms that passed cost parties nothing, such as EVMs and the two-seat cap. The ones that would limit parties' power stayed on paper, such as state funding, the CEC appointment process and defection rulings. This shows how legislators' self-interest slows down electoral reform.

Related concepts

• Tarkunde Committee (1975)
• Law Commission 170th report
• Law Commission 255th report

Read more

• The reform blueprints: committees, Law Commission and ECI proposals