Electoral Reforms: Money, Criminalisation and Simultaneous Elections

1. Why electoral reforms: diagnosis and routes

Read the detailed note →

• Electoral reforms are changes in election law and practice that make elections freer and fairer. Examples: curbing money and muscle power, making candidates and parties disclose more, and protecting the ECI's independence.
• Six NCERT suggestions (Class 11, Election and Representation):
• switch from FPTP to a PR variant;
• one-third women in legislatures;
• state funding from a special fund;
• bar candidates facing criminal cases even while an appeal is pending;
• a complete ban on caste and religious appeals;

• a law making parties transparent and democratic.

• NCERT warns that there is no consensus on these, and that laws have limits. Vigilant citizens and watchdog bodies are also needed.

• Class 8 names three challenges: money, candidates with criminal records, and urban apathy. Class 9 adds misinformation, fake news and intimidation.
• Routes of reform:
• Legislative: RPA amendments of 1988-89 (EVMs under s.61A; booth capturing), 1996 (the Goswami template), 2002-03 (s.33A; s.29B and s.29C), 2009 (exit polls) and 2021 (Aadhaar linking).
• Judicial: disclosure (2002-03), Lily Thomas, NOTA and VVPAT (2013), electoral bonds (2024).
• Administrative (ECI): MCC enforcement, EPIC, observers, cVIGIL, SIR.
• Civil society: ADR, PUCL, Lok Prahari.

• Constitutional: the 106th Amendment; the 129th and 130th Amendment Bills.

• Thread: courts and the ECI did the most, using Art. 19(1)(a) and Art. 324. Parliament acts slowly when a reform hurts parties. Public Interest Foundation (2018) told Parliament, not the courts, to add new disqualifications.

2. The reform blueprints: committees, Law Commission and ECI proposals

Read the detailed note →

• Tarkunde Committee (1975): set up by Jayaprakash Narayan's Citizens for Democracy. It proposed voting at 18, a multi-member ECI and curbs on money power. All three came later.
• Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990): proposed:
• appointing the CEC after consulting the CJI and the Leader of Opposition (LoP);
• limited state funding in kind (vehicles, fuel, printing);
• EVMs;
• a two-seat cap on contesting and higher deposits;

• anti-defection decisions by the President or Governor on the ECI's advice. Many of these went into the 1996 amendments.

• Law Commission 170th report (1999, Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy): internal democracy and financial transparency in parties; a partial list (PR) system (verify seat share); deleting the split exception (done by the 91st Amendment, 2003); debarring candidates charged with serious offences; simultaneous elections.

• NCRWC (2002) and the 2nd ARC's 4th report, Ethics in Governance (2007), backed partial state funding and debarment at charge stage for grave offences.
• Law Commission 255th report (2015, Justice A.P. Shah): regulating party finances; paid news and false affidavits as electoral offences; curbs on opinion polls; the totaliser; ECs appointed by a PM-LoP-CJI committee.
• ECI proposals (2004, 2016): power to deregister parties, a one-seat limit, audit of party accounts, equal removal protection for ECs.

Implemented	Not implemented
Voting at 18, EVMs, split exception deleted, disclosure, VVPAT and NOTA (via courts), exit-poll ban, two-seat cap	State funding, a law on parties, disqualification at charge stage, totaliser, paid-news offence, deregistration power, equal protection for ECs

3. Criminalisation of politics I: disclosure and the voter's right to know

Read the detailed note →

• Criminalisation of politics means people facing criminal cases entering politics. Disclosure is required, but only a conviction, not a pending charge, disqualifies.
• Vohra Committee (1993): led by Home Secretary N.N. Vohra after the Bombay blasts. It found a nexus of criminals, politicians and bureaucrats and proposed a nodal agency to act on intelligence about it. Only a summary was tabled (1995).
• Share of Lok Sabha winners with declared criminal cases (ADR): 24% (2004), 43% (2019), 46% (2024: 251 of 543) (verify). Parties pick them for "winnability".
• ADR case (Union of India v. ADR, 2002): the voter's right to know is part of Art. 19(1)(a). Candidates must disclose criminal cases, assets, liabilities and education.
• PUCL disclosure case (2003): struck down s.33B, which had limited disclosure, and restored full disclosure. The result is the candidate affidavit (Form 26), a sworn statement filed with the nomination.
• Section 125A of the RPA 1951: hiding or giving false information in the affidavit is punishable with up to six months' jail, a fine or both. The ECI wants two years plus disqualification.
• Lok Prahari case (2018): candidates must disclose the sources of income of themselves, their spouses and dependants. The Court called for a standing mechanism to probe unusual growth in assets.
• Rambabu Singh Thakur case (2020): within 48 hours of choosing a candidate, parties must publish the candidate's criminal record and the reasons for the choice. They must use their website, social media and newspapers. "Winnability" is not a valid reason.
• Limit: disclosure has not cut the numbers, so the debate has moved to disqualification.

4. Criminalisation of politics II: disqualification, speedy trials and the charge-sheet debate

Read the detailed note →

• Disqualification on conviction (s.8 RPA 1951):
• s.8(1): listed offences (e.g., promoting enmity, bribery, terrorism) disqualify whatever the sentence;
• s.8(2): certain social and economic offences need a sentence of at least six months;

• s.8(3): any other offence needs a sentence of two years or more. The bar runs until six years after release. (NCERT simplifies this to "imprisonment for two years".)

• Lily Thomas case (2013): struck down s.8(4), which had let sitting members keep their seats during an appeal. Members now lose their seats at once. A stay of the conviction brings membership back (Rahul Gandhi: disqualified in March 2023, restored in August 2023).

• CEC v. Jan Chaukidar (2013) held that people in custody could not contest. Parliament amended s.62(5) the same year, so custody no longer bars contesting.
• Law Commission 244th report (2014): disqualify a person once charges are framed for offences carrying five years or more, if framed at least a year before scrutiny, with safeguards. It has not been enacted.
• Public Interest Foundation case (2018, Constitution Bench): courts cannot add a disqualification at the charge stage. Its reasons were the presumption of innocence and separation of powers. Instead it ordered wide publicity of cases and urged Parliament to legislate.
• Lifetime ban plea (Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay): the Centre opposed it in February 2025 (verify current).
• Special courts for MPs and MLAs: set up from 2017 to fast-track cases against legislators. High Courts monitor them (2023 directions).
• Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill 2025: would remove a PM, CM or minister held in custody for 30 days on charges carrying five years or more. It is with a JPC (verify current).

5. Money power I: expenditure limits and party finance

Read the detailed note →

• Money power in elections means large, often unaccounted funds, gifts and vote-buying. ECI seizures before the 2024 polls were about ₹8,889 crore (verify).
• Election expenditure limits (s.77 RPA; Rule 90, from 2022): Lok Sabha ₹95 lakh (larger states) or ₹75 lakh; assemblies ₹40 lakh or ₹28 lakh.
• Accounts are due within 30 days (s.78). Failing to file brings three years' disqualification (s.10A).

• Party spending has no cap. Explanation 1 to s.77 reversed Kanwar Lal Gupta (1974), which had counted party spending as the candidate's.

• Star campaigner: travel costs of party leaders (up to 40 for recognised parties, 20 for others) are not added to the candidate's account.

• Section 29C of the RPA: parties must report donations above ₹20,000 to the ECI each year.
• Section 13A of the Income-tax Act 1961: party income is tax-free if the party keeps audited accounts, files returns and makes the s.29C report. It was re-enacted in the 2025 Act (verify section).
• Cash donation limit: from 2017, no cash donation above ₹2,000 from one source.
• Corporate donations (s.182 Companies Act 2013): a company must be at least three years old and may give up to 7.5% of its average net profit. It must disclose the donation. Government companies cannot donate.
• Foreign funding is barred by the FCRA 2010. Retrospective amendments in 2016 and 2018 narrowed "foreign source" after the Delhi High Court (2014) ruling against the BJP and INC.
• Electoral trusts (2013 scheme): non-profit companies that must pass at least 95% of what they receive to parties each year and disclose donors and recipients.

6. Money power II: electoral bonds, the 2024 judgment and state funding

Read the detailed note →

• Electoral bonds (2018-2024): interest-free bearer instruments sold only by SBI.
• Denominations ran from ₹1,000 to ₹1 crore, and each bond was valid for 15 days.
• Only parties with at least 1% of the vote could redeem them.
• Donors were hidden from the public but known to SBI.
• The Finance Act 2017 removed bond reporting under s.29C and lifted the corporate cap.

• The RBI and the ECI objected. About ₹16,518 crore was sold (verify).

• Electoral bonds case (ADR v. Union of India, 15 February 2024): a unanimous Constitution Bench held:

• voters have a right to know about party funding under Art. 19(1)(a), because funding can buy policy (quid pro quo);
• hiding donors fails the proportionality test, because milder options such as trusts existed;
• privacy protects small donors, not big corporate donations;

• unlimited corporate donations are manifestly arbitrary (clearly unreasonable) under Art. 14. It struck down the scheme and the 2017 amendments, so the 7.5% cap is back. The ECI published the bond data in March 2024.

• Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998): backed partial state funding in kind, not cash, only for recognised parties and their candidates.

• State funding of elections means the state pays election costs to reduce money power. It has not been adopted.
• Law Commission 170th report: total funding only after a law regulating parties.
• India already funds parties indirectly: free airtime on DD and AIR (s.39A) and tax exemption.
• Objections: cost, black money continuing alongside, and help to parties already in power.

7. Campaign integrity: paid news, hate speech, freebies and the MCC's legal status

Read the detailed note →

• Paid news: news or analysis published for money or kind. The ECI counts it as election expenditure. Umlesh Yadav (2011) was the first legislator disqualified (s.10A) for hiding such spending. The 255th report wanted it made a separate offence.
• Media Certification and Monitoring Committee: district and state bodies that pre-certify political ads on TV, radio and social media and flag suspected paid news.
• Hate speech in elections: speech promoting enmity between groups. It is a corrupt practice (s.123(3A)), an RPA offence (s.125) and a crime under BNS 2023 s.196.
• Appeal on grounds of religion or caste (s.123(3)): seeking votes on religion, race, caste, community or language is a corrupt practice. Proof voids the election.
• Hindutva case (1995): the word "Hindutva" can mean a way of life and is not by itself a religious appeal.
• Abhiram Singh case (2017, 4:3): "his religion" covers the religion of the candidate, the voter or anyone else. So NCERT's "complete ban" already exists in law; enforcement is the gap.
• Freebies: S. Subramaniam Balaji (2013) held that pre-election promises are not a corrupt practice. The ECI then added manifesto guidelines (MCC Part VIII, 2014). A three-judge bench case is pending (verify current).
• MCC status: it is not a law. The ECI enforces it under Art. 324 (e.g., campaign bans in 2019). A 2013 parliamentary panel wanted it made a statute. The ECI disagrees, because court cases would stall action during the short poll period.

8. Technology and trust: the EVM-VVPAT verification debate

Read the detailed note →

• EVM safeguards:
• standalone machines with one-time-programmable chips from BEL and ECIL;
• first-level checks before party agents;
• two-stage randomisation;
• mock polls;
• sealed strong rooms;

• M3 machines that detect tampering.

• Subramanian Swamy VVPAT case (2013): a paper trail is indispensable (absolutely necessary) for free and fair elections. VVPAT was brought in by phases and was universal by 2019.

• N. Chandrababu Naidu case (2019): slip counting was raised from one to five random EVMs per assembly segment. Opposition parties had wanted 50%.
• EVM-VVPAT verification case (ADR v. ECI, 26 April 2024): rejected paper ballots, 100% slip counting and handing slips to voters. It directed:
• symbol loading units to be sealed and kept for 45 days;

• on written request within 7 days, candidates placed second or third may have the burnt memory of 5% of EVMs per segment checked, at their own cost, refunded if tampering is found.

• Totaliser: pools votes from about 14 EVMs so booth-wise voting patterns stay hidden and voters cannot be targeted. The ECI and Law Commission back it; the government has not adopted it.

• December 2024 change to Rule 93(2)(a): narrowed public access to CCTV and webcast footage. It is challenged in the Supreme Court (verify current).
• Frame: secret ballot vs efficiency vs verifiability. Germany's court struck down EVMs in 2009 because the public could not verify them.

9. Rolls, identity and access: Aadhaar linking, the SIR debate, remote and compulsory voting

Read the detailed note →

• Election Laws (Amendment) Act 2021:
• allowed voluntary Aadhaar linking (s.23 RPA 1950);
• brought four qualifying dates a year for enrolment;

• replaced "wife" with "spouse" for service voters.

• Aadhaar-voter ID linking: no entry may be refused or deleted for not giving Aadhaar, "for sufficient cause". The ECI told the Court in 2023 (G. Niranjan) that it is not mandatory. ECI-UIDAI technical talks began in March 2025.

• Concerns: privacy, wrongful deletions, and Aadhaar not being proof of citizenship.

• SIR debate (accuracy vs exclusion):

• For: removing dead, shifted and duplicate voters and non-citizens.
• Against: the burden of proof falls on voters; poor people and migrants lack documents; about 65 lakh names were left off the Bihar draft roll.
• Court safeguards included lists of excluded names with reasons and Aadhaar as a twelfth document.
• ADR v. ECI (27 May 2026) upheld the SIR under s.21(3) and Art. 324, with limited citizenship checks and referral to the Citizenship Act authority. Later phases: verify current.

• Class 9, Elections presents the SIR only positively.

• Remote Voting Machine: prototype shown in January 2023. One remote booth could serve up to 72 constituencies. It has not been adopted after parties objected. About 34% of eligible voters did not vote in 2024.

• Compulsory voting: a legal duty to vote, as in Australia. Gujarat's 2009 law for local polls was stayed by the Gujarat High Court in 2015.
• Right to reject: a fresh poll if NOTA tops the count. It is not law for legislatures; some State Election Commissions apply it in local polls.

10. Simultaneous elections: One Nation, One Election

Read the detailed note →

• One Nation One Election: holding Lok Sabha and assembly polls together, as in 1951-52, 1957, 1962 and 1967. The cycle broke with early dissolutions (1968-69, and the Lok Sabha in 1970) and Art. 356 dismissals.
• Advocates: the ECI (1983), the Law Commission (1999 and draft 2018), the Standing Committee (79th report, 2015), NITI Aayog (2017). Class 9 Q14 asks students to debate it.
• High-Level Committee on Simultaneous Elections: chaired by Ram Nath Kovind; reported 14 March 2024.
• Step 1: Lok Sabha and assembly polls together.
• Step 2: local body polls within 100 days, which needs Art. 324A and ratification by half the states.
• An "appointed date" is fixed, and later assemblies end with that Lok Sabha.
• After a hung House, fresh polls are only for the remaining term.

• The Cabinet accepted the report on 18 September 2024.

• Common electoral roll: one roll and EPIC for all levels, prepared by the ECI with the SECs (amending Art. 325).

• Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill 2024: introduced on 17 December 2024 and sent to a JPC chaired by P.P. Chaudhary. It inserts Art. 82A and amends Arts. 83, 172 and 327. It does not cover local bodies. The JPC is still working (verify current).
• For: lower cost, fewer MCC pauses, less diversion of forces and teachers.
• Against:
• federalism and the basic structure (state assembly terms tied to the Union);
• weaker accountability;
• national issues swamping state ones;

• roughly double the EVMs needed.

• Alternative: Germany's constructive vote of no-confidence.

11. Structural reforms: ECI independence, the electoral system and women's representation

Read the detailed note →

• ECI appointments, step by step: 1. Goswami (1990) and the 255th report (2015) proposed a PM-LoP-CJI panel. 2. Anoop Baranwal (2023) set an interim panel that included the CJI. 3. The CEC and ECs Act 2023 made it PM, LoP and a Cabinet Minister, so the executive has a majority. 4. In Jaya Thakur (23 September 2026) a split bench sent the Act to the CJI for a Constitution Bench (verify current).

• Other demands: CEC-like removal protection for ECs, an independent secretariat, a cooling-off period after retirement. The 2024-26 rows show that public trust matters as much as law.

• Electoral system: Class 11 asks whether India should shift from FPTP to PR. Options: a partial list system (170th report), mixed systems (Germany, New Zealand), a run-off. Risks: unstable coalitions, party control of lists, identity-based parties.
• Women's representation: women are about 12% of legislators (NCERT). The 18th Lok Sabha has 74 women, 13.6% (verify).
• Constitution (106th Amendment) Act 2023 (Arts. 330A, 332A, 334A):
• one-third of Lok Sabha, assembly and Delhi seats, including within SC/ST seats;
• takes effect only after delimitation based on the first census after the Act (Census 2027, so likely 2029 at the earliest; verify);
• lasts 15 years, with rotation;
• no quota in the Rajya Sabha or councils, and no OBC sub-quota.

---

Exam angles

Prelims — high-yield facts and traps

• Committees: Tarkunde 1975 (JP's Citizens for Democracy) · Goswami 1990 · Vohra 1993 (crime-politics nexus) · Indrajit Gupta 1998 (state funding in kind) · Law Commission 170th 1999, 244th 2014 (charge-stage disqualification), 255th 2015, 267th 2017 (hate speech) · Kovind Committee 2024.
• Disclosure cases: ADR 2002 (right to know) · PUCL 2003 (s.33B struck down) · Lok Prahari 2018 (income sources; a stay of conviction revives membership) · Rambabu Singh Thakur 2020 (48 hours; reasons for selection).
• Disqualification cases: Lily Thomas 2013 (s.8(4) struck down) · Public Interest Foundation 2018 (no judge-made disqualification).
• Campaign cases: Abhiram Singh 2017 · Balaji 2013 (freebies not a corrupt practice) · Kanwar Lal Gupta 1974 (party spending).
• Technology cases: Swamy 2013 (VVPAT) · Naidu 2019 (five EVMs) · ADR, April 2024 (5% burnt-memory check).
• Money numbers: ₹20,000 reporting threshold (s.29C) · ₹2,000 cash cap · 7.5% corporate cap (restored in 2024) · trusts pass on 95% · expenditure caps ₹95/75 lakh (Lok Sabha) and ₹40/28 lakh (assemblies) · 40 and 20 star campaigners.
• Bond facts: SBI only · 15-day validity · ₹1,000 to ₹1 crore · 1% vote eligibility.
• "Party spending is capped": FALSE.
• "A pending charge disqualifies a candidate": FALSE.
• "Custody bars contesting": FALSE (s.62(5) amended in 2013).
• s.8 disqualification lasts until six years after release.
• "Aadhaar linking is mandatory": FALSE (the 2021 Act allows "sufficient cause").
• "The RVM is in use": FALSE (it is a prototype).
• "Paid news is a separate offence": FALSE (it is counted as expenditure).
• s.125A: false affidavit, up to six months' jail.
• 129th Bill: inserts Art. 82A and amends Arts. 83, 172 and 327.
• "The 129th Bill covers local bodies": FALSE (that step needs Art. 324A and state ratification).
• 106th Amendment: Arts. 330A, 332A, 334A; effective after delimitation; lasts 15 years; includes SC/ST seats; no Rajya Sabha quota.

Mains — GS-II themes

1. Criminalisation: disclosure vs disqualification; presumption of innocence vs clean legislatures; court activism vs a reluctant Parliament; how special courts have performed.
2. Election finance after the bonds verdict: transparency vs donor privacy; corporate influence; what should come next (state funding in kind, caps on party spending, independent audit, trusts).
3. One Nation, One Election: efficiency vs federalism, accountability and the basic structure; feasibility and alternatives.
4. Trust in EVMs and VVPAT: secrecy vs transparency (totaliser, CCTV rules); the ECI's duty to win public confidence.
5. Accurate vs inclusive rolls: the SIR, Aadhaar linking, and citizenship checks vs fair process for vulnerable voters.
6. Freebies vs welfare: fiscal prudence, the MCC manifesto guidelines, and the roles of the ECI, courts and voters.
7. Identity appeals and hate speech: the Abhiram Singh debate, enforcement gaps, and the case for a statutory MCC.
8. ECI independence: how appointments are designed, EC tenure protection, and the public trust test.
9. Women's representation: tying the 106th Amendment to delimitation, and party-level quotas as an alternative.

Current-affairs hooks

• JPC proceedings on the 129th Amendment Bill and the 130th Amendment Bill.
• ADR reports after each poll; special court orders; the lifetime-ban petition.
• Party contribution and electoral trust filings with the ECI; follow-ups to the bond data.
• SIR phases and Aadhaar-EPIC linking; the Rule 93 CCTV case; ECI advisories on deepfakes.
• The Constitution Bench on the 2023 CEC Act (after Jaya Thakur, 2026); the Census 2027 to delimitation timeline.
• The freebies case and pre-poll cash-transfer announcements under the MCC.