Why electoral reforms: diagnosis and routes

Detail

What "electoral reform" means

• Electoral reforms are changes in election law and practice that make elections freer and fairer.
• They cover three broad aims:
• curbing money power (the use of large or hidden funds to win votes) and muscle power (the use of force, fear or criminals to win votes);
• making candidates and parties disclose more about their money, assets and criminal cases;
• protecting the independence of the Election Commission of India (ECI), the constitutional body under Article 324 that runs elections to Parliament, state legislatures and the offices of President and Vice-President.

The diagnosis in NCERT

Class 11 (Election and Representation):

• No electoral system is perfect. More than 70 years of elections have produced many proposals from the ECI, political parties, civil society groups and scholars.

• NCERT lists six suggestions: 1. Replace FPTP (first-past-the-post: the candidate with the most votes wins, even without a majority) with a variant of PR (proportional representation: parties get seats in proportion to their vote share). 2. Reserve at least one-third of seats for women in Parliament and state assemblies. 3. Control money. The government should pay election expenses from a special fund (this is state funding). 4. Bar candidates facing criminal cases from contesting, even if their appeal is still pending. 5. Completely ban appeals to caste and religion in campaigns. 6. Pass a law to regulate parties so that they work in a transparent and democratic way.

• NCERT gives two warnings:

• there is no consensus on these proposals;

• laws have limits. Elections are free and fair only when candidates, parties and officials accept the spirit of fair competition. So citizens must stay alert, and watchdog bodies must stay active.

• NCERT poses a question for discussion: "Can we reduce the influence of money and muscle power by changing the law?"

Class 8 (Universal Franchise and India's Electoral System):

• It names three challenges:
• money power;
• a "significant proportion of candidates with criminal records";

• voter apathy (voters not caring enough to vote), seen most in cities.

• Its answer is informed and active voters.

Class 9 (Elections):

• It adds the "potholes" on the road to fair elections: misinformation, fake news and intimidation of voters.
• Its exercises on money power show that richer candidates and parties have an unfair advantage.

Route 1 — Legislative (Parliament amends election law)

The main law is the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA 1951). It covers the conduct of elections, disqualifications, offences and disputes. The RPA 1950 covers electoral rolls and the allocation of seats.

Year	Law	Key change
1988-89	61st Amendment (1988); RPA amendment (1988-89)	Voting age cut from 21 to 18 (Art. 326). s.61A allowed EVMs (electronic voting machines). Booth capturing (seizing a polling station to cast false votes) became an offence and a ground for countermanding a poll
1996	RPA amendment based on the Goswami Committee (1990) template	A candidate can contest from at most two constituencies (s.33(7)). Higher security deposits. More proposers for candidates who are independent or from unrecognised parties. By-elections within six months (s.151A). Observers (s.20B)
2002	RPA amendment	s.33A: candidates must disclose their criminal cases
2003	Election and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2003	s.29B: parties may accept donations, but not from government companies. s.29C: parties must report donations above ₹20,000 to the ECI. s.39A: free airtime for parties on public broadcasters. Tax deductions for donations to parties, which push donors towards clean, recorded money
2009	RPA amendment	Exit polls banned during the poll period (s.126A)
2021	Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021	Aadhaar linking; four qualifying dates (details below)

• Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998): it examined state funding of elections. The idea is the same as NCERT's "special fund" proposal.
• The 2021 Act in detail:
• An electoral registration officer may ask a person for their Aadhaar number to confirm who they are [5].
• A person who cannot give an Aadhaar number for a "sufficient cause" will not be denied enrolment. Their name will not be deleted from the roll either [5].
• Four qualifying dates each year: 1 January, 1 April, 1 July and 1 October. Earlier the only date was 1 January. A person who turned 18 after that date had to wait for the next year's roll [5].

Route 2 — Judicial (courts read rights into elections)

Courts mainly used Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression). They held that it includes the voter's right to know about candidates and parties.

Case	Year	Principle
Union of India v. ADR	2002	Candidates must disclose criminal cases, assets and education
PUCL v. Union of India	2003	Struck down Parliament's attempt to limit that disclosure (s.33B). The right to know cannot be cut down by law
Lily Thomas v. Union of India	2013	Struck down s.8(4) RPA. A sitting MP or MLA who is convicted and sentenced to 2 or more years is disqualified at once. A pending appeal does not protect them
PUCL v. Union of India	2013	NOTA (None of the Above) button. Voters can reject every candidate secretly
Subramanian Swamy v. ECI	2013	VVPAT (a paper slip that lets the voter check the vote recorded by the EVM)
Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India	2018	Courts cannot add new disqualifications. That is Parliament's job (see below)
ADR v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds)	2024	Electoral Bond Scheme struck down

Electoral bonds judgment (15 February 2024):

• A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court decided the case [6].
• Electoral bonds were bank instruments that let donors give money to parties without their names being made public.
• The Court struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme. It also struck down the linked amendments to the RPA 1951, the Companies Act and the Income-tax Act 1961 [6].
• Reason: information about party funding is essential for a voter to vote effectively. Anonymous funding therefore violated Article 19(1)(a) [6].
• Orders:
• SBI (State Bank of India, the only bank that issued the bonds) had to stop issuing bonds [6];
• SBI had to give the ECI details of bonds bought since the interim order of 12 April 2019: date of purchase, buyer's name and amount [6].

Public Interest Foundation (2018):

• The Court was anguished by the rise of criminals in politics.
• It accepted that disqualification once charges are framed (when a court formally accuses a person after a first look at the evidence) "may be desirable" [2].
• But the Law Commission's recommendation had not become law. So the Court said Parliament should examine the issue. It did not legislate itself [2].
• The Law Commission's report on Electoral Disqualifications (2014):
• The Supreme Court asked for this report in December 2013, in a PIL filed by the same NGO [2].
• It proposed disqualification on framing of charges only for offences with a maximum punishment of 5 years or more [2].
• The disqualification would last until acquittal by the trial court, or 6 years, whichever is earlier [2].

• Trials of sitting MPs and MLAs should run day to day and end within one year [2].

• This is still not law. NCERT's suggestion (bar candidates facing criminal cases even while an appeal is pending) goes further than the Law Commission's.

Route 3 — Administrative (the ECI's own powers under Art. 324)

• MCC (Model Code of Conduct): rules of behaviour for parties and governments from the day elections are announced. No law backs it. The ECI enforces it using Art. 324 and public pressure.
• EPIC (Electors Photo Identity Card): photo voter ID cards, used to stop fake voting.
• Observers: officers sent by the ECI to watch spending and polling. The 1996 law gave them a legal basis (s.20B).
• cVIGIL: a mobile app that lets citizens report MCC violations with photos or videos.
• SIR (Special Intensive Revision): a fresh, door-to-door check of electoral rolls to remove ineligible names and add eligible voters.

Route 4 — Civil society (watchdogs)

• ADR (Association for Democratic Reforms, founded 1999): filed the disclosure case (2002) and the electoral bonds case (2024).
• PUCL (People's Union for Civil Liberties): won the 2003 disclosure case and the 2013 NOTA case.
• Lok Prahari: an NGO that files cases on disqualification and candidate disclosures.
• Common Cause: an NGO that files cases on party funding and accountability.
• These groups are the "watchdog bodies" that NCERT asks for.

Route 5 — Constitutional amendments

Procedure under Article 368 (special majority):

1. The bill can be introduced in either House of Parliament.
2. Each House must pass it by a majority of its total membership and by two-thirds of members present and voting.
3. If the amendment changes federal provisions, half the state legislatures must ratify it.
4. The President must give assent. The President cannot withhold it (24th Amendment, 1971).

• 106th Amendment (2023), the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam:
• Reserves one-third of seats for women in the Lok Sabha, state assemblies and the Delhi assembly.
• It takes effect only after the delimitation (redrawing of constituencies) that follows the next census.

• It meets NCERT suggestion 2.

• 129th Amendment Bill (2024), simultaneous elections or "One Nation One Election":

• It lets the ECI hold Lok Sabha and all state assembly elections together [3].
• Introduced in the Lok Sabha on 17 December 2024 [3].
• Sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on 19 December 2024 [3].
• The JPC is chaired by P.P. Chaudhary [3].

• The JPC has since been holding stakeholder consultations, including in Goa. The bill is not yet passed [4].

• How the 129th Bill would work:

• Appointed date: the President notifies a date on the first sitting of the Lok Sabha after a general election [3].
• The terms of all assemblies elected after that date end when that Lok Sabha's five-year term ends [3].
• If the Lok Sabha or an assembly is dissolved early, the fresh election is only for the rest of the five-year term [3].

• If the ECI thinks a state's election cannot be held with the rest, it can recommend this to the President. The President may then defer that state's election [3].

• Why the government proposed it: its Statement of Objects and Reasons says:

• elections have become expensive and time-consuming [3];

• repeated MCC periods hold up development work [3].

• 130th Amendment Bill: a constitutional route against criminalisation. It deals with removing ministers who are held in custody on serious charges.

The common thread

• Courts and the ECI have done the most. They used Art. 19(1)(a) (the voter's right to know) and Art. 324 (the ECI's power to supervise elections).
• Parliament is slow when a reform hurts parties. Examples:
• it tried to dilute disclosure (s.33B, 2002);

• it has not acted on the Law Commission's 2014 report on charge-framing.

• The tension is between court-led reform and separation of powers (each organ of the state keeps to its own role). In Public Interest Foundation (2018), the Court refused to add disqualifications that the statute does not contain. It passed the job back to Parliament [2].

Prelims Hooks

• s.61A RPA 1951 → legal basis for EVMs (added by the 1988-89 amendments). The 61st Amendment (1988) lowered the voting age to 18 (Art. 326).
• s.29C RPA → parties must report donations above ₹20,000 to the ECI (2003 Act). s.39A → free airtime on public broadcasters.
• s.33(7) → contest from at most two constituencies (1996). s.151A → by-election within six months.
• Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 → voluntary Aadhaar linking. Four qualifying dates: 1 Jan, 1 Apr, 1 Jul, 1 Oct.
• Lily Thomas (2013) struck down s.8(4). PUCL (2013) gave NOTA. Subramanian Swamy (2013) gave VVPAT.
• ADR v. Union of India (15 Feb 2024) → Electoral Bond Scheme unconstitutional under Art. 19(1)(a). The order on bond details went back to the 12 April 2019 interim order.
• Trap: Public Interest Foundation (2018) did not bar charge-sheeted candidates. It left that to Parliament.
• Trap: the MCC has no statutory backing. The ECI enforces it through Art. 324.
• 129th Amendment Bill (2024) → introduced 17 Dec 2024. Referred to a JPC (chair P.P. Chaudhary) on 19 Dec 2024.
• 106th Amendment (2023) → one-third reservation for women. It applies only after delimitation that follows the next census.

Mains Points

• Law vs culture: NCERT warns that laws have limits.
• The record supports this: disclosure (2002-03) has not stopped parties fielding candidates with criminal cases.

• So reform needs legal rules, party self-regulation and vigilant voters together.

• Court-led reform vs separation of powers:

• Courts widened Art. 19(1)(a) to include the right to know (2002, 2024).
• But in 2018 they stopped short of creating new disqualifications.

• Argue for Parliament acting on the Law Commission's 2014 report, with safeguards against false or politically motivated cases (the 5-year offence threshold and time-bound trials).

• Money power:

• After electoral bonds were struck down (2024), the gap remains: party funding is opaque, and there is no cap on what parties spend.

• Options: state funding (the Indrajit Gupta Committee, 1998, and NCERT's "special fund"), full digital disclosure, and audited party accounts.

• Simultaneous elections (129th Bill):

• For: lower cost and fewer MCC freezes [3].
• Against: it may weaken federalism and accountability to state voters, and makes short "remainder" terms possible.
• Use the JPC process to argue for broad consensus. That is the same caution NCERT gives about any reform that lacks agreement.