Election Commission and electoral reforms

The first principle

An election settles who holds power, so the body that runs it must be trusted by the people who lose as much as by those who win. The Constitution therefore puts elections under a single body outside the government's control, the Election Commission of India (ECI), and gives it wide powers that the law cannot fully foresee. Every question in this note, from how commissioners are appointed to whether voters trust a machine, is a question about keeping that trust.

The core

Article 324 and the shape of the Commission

• Plenary power. Article 324 vests the "superintendence, direction and control" of electoral rolls and of elections to Parliament, state legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice President in the ECI. In Mohinder Singh Gill v Chief Election Commissioner (1978) the Court called this a reservoir of power to act where the law is silent, though it must be used fairly and cannot override a statute. That limit showed in A. C. Jose v Sivan Pillai (1984), where the Court set aside a poll held with Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) because the law did not then provide for them.
• One member, then three. The Commission had only a Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) until 1989, when two Election Commissioners (ECs) were added and soon removed; since 1993 it has been a three member body. T. N. Seshan v Union of India (1995) upheld this, holding that decisions are taken by majority and the CEC is first among equals.
• Security of tenure. The CEC can be removed only like a judge of the Supreme Court, and his conditions of service cannot be varied to his disadvantage; the other ECs can be removed only on the CEC's recommendation.
• Appointment. Article 324(2) leaves appointment to the President subject to a law by Parliament, which for decades was not made. In Anoop Baranwal v Union of India (March 2023) a five judge bench directed that, until Parliament legislates, appointments be made on the advice of a committee of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) and the Chief Justice of India (CJI). Parliament then passed the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, under which a search committee headed by the Law Minister prepares a panel and a selection committee of the Prime Minister, the LoP and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister chooses. The Act was challenged in the Supreme Court, which declined to stay it in March 2024.

What the Commission does

Dimensions

The Model Code of Conduct

• Origin and growth. The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) began as a code agreed among parties for the Kerala Assembly elections of 1960, was circulated by the ECI to parties in 1962, and was revised in 1979 to add a section on the party in power. It applies from the announcement of the schedule until results are declared.
• From paper to practice. Enforcement became real from 1991 under T. N. Seshan, who used Article 324 to postpone polls and stop official announcements during elections. The Code has no statutory force; the Commission relies on censure, campaign bans on leaders, transfers of officers and, behind them, the power over the conduct of the poll.
• Should it be law? The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice recommended statutory backing in 2013. The ECI opposed this, because a statutory code would be enforced through courts, and cases could not be decided within the few weeks an election lasts.
• New pressures. Paid news, which the ECI wants made an electoral offence, campaigns on social media that cross the line between party and supporter, misuse of official machinery and welfare announcements on the eve of polls test a code written for public meetings. The cVIGIL app (2018) lets citizens report violations with photographs.

Electoral rolls and citizenship

• The rules. Article 325 requires one general roll for each constituency, with no exclusion on religion, race, caste or sex, and Article 326 entitles every adult citizen not disqualified by law to be registered. Sections 16 to 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 provide for preparation and revision of rolls, including a special revision when the ECI so directs (Section 21(3)).
• Special Intensive Revision in Bihar, 2025. The ECI ordered a fresh enumeration in which electors not on the old intensive roll had to submit documents of eligibility. In Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) v ECI the Supreme Court let the revision continue, while directing that Aadhaar be accepted as one of the documents for identity, though not as proof of citizenship.
• Can the Commission examine citizenship? In Lal Babu Hussein v Electoral Registration Officer (1995) the Court held that an Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) can inquire into the citizenship of a person on the roll, but only after notice and a fair hearing, without striking off names on mere suspicion, and taking into account that the person was already enrolled. The ECI's inquiry is limited to eligibility for the roll, and it does not by itself settle a person's citizenship, which is decided by the authorities under the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the laws on foreigners.

In practice

EVMs and the question of trust

• The record. EVMs were first used in 1982 in Paravur in Kerala, and after A. C. Jose the law was amended in 1988 (Section 61A) to permit them; every Lok Sabha seat used them from 2004. In Subramanian Swamy v ECI (2013) the Court held a Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) necessary for free and fair elections, and in N. Chandrababu Naidu v Union of India (2019) it raised slip counting to five machines per Assembly segment.
• ADR v ECI (April 2024). The Court rejected a return to paper ballots and a full count of VVPAT slips. It directed that symbol loading units be sealed and stored after results, and that the candidates placed second and third may, within seven days, ask for engineers to check the burnt memory of up to five per cent of machines in a segment, at their cost.
• The challenge. Doubt now rests less on proof of tampering than on perception, spread fast on social media. The third generation M3 machines carry tamper detection and self diagnosis, but trust depends equally on transparency: open demonstrations, audits and quick answers to complaints.

Reforms proposed by committees

• Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990) proposed limited state funding in kind, wider use of EVMs and curbs on misuse of official machinery. The Vohra Committee (1993) described the nexus between criminals, politicians and officials. The Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998) backed state funding of elections in kind for recognised parties.
• Law Commission. The 170th Report (1999) sought internal democracy in parties and simultaneous elections; the 255th Report (2015) dealt with election finance and paid news and recommended that the CEC be chosen by a collegium and that a totaliser be used to mix votes from several machines before counting.
• ECI's proposals of 2004 and 2016. Disqualification of persons charged with heinous offences once charges are framed, making paid news an electoral offence and bribery a cognisable one, allowing a candidate to contest from one seat only, the totaliser, regulation of opinion and exit polls, and power to deregister parties, which it lacks after Indian National Congress (I) v Institute of Social Welfare (2002).
• Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) (2007) recommended partial state funding and disqualification of persons charged with grave offences. The Supreme Court declined to add that ground itself in Public Interest Foundation (2018), leaving it to Parliament, but required candidates and parties to publicise criminal records.
• Electoral bonds. In February 2024 a five judge bench struck down the electoral bond scheme, holding that anonymous funding violated voters' right to information under Article 19(1)(a).

Simultaneous elections

• History. Elections to the Lok Sabha and the Assemblies were held together in 1951 to 1952, 1957, 1962 and 1967, until early dissolutions of Assemblies and of the Lok Sabha in 1970 broke the cycle.
• The proposals. The Law Commission (1999), a Parliamentary Standing Committee (2015), a NITI Aayog discussion paper (2017) and a draft Law Commission report (2018) argued for a return. The High Level Committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind (report, March 2024) proposed two steps: Lok Sabha and Assemblies together, with Assemblies elected after an "appointed date" ending with the Lok Sabha and any mid term election only for the unexpired term; then municipal and panchayat elections within 100 days.
• The Bill. The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024, introduced in December 2024, provides for the first step and was referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee.
• For. Lower cost to the exchequer and to parties, less governance lost to repeated MCC periods, less voter fatigue, and freedom for security forces and officials from constant election duty.
• Against. Fewer chances for voters to hold governments to account, national issues swamping state issues, harm to federalism if a state's term is cut to fit the national cycle, no clean answer to mid term dissolution, and the need for far more EVMs and staff at once.

Issues and way forward

• Perceived dependence. An appointment committee dominated by the government feeds doubt. A committee with an independent member, as Anoop Baranwal and the 255th Report suggested, and equal removal protection for all commissioners would answer it.
• Weak legal tools. The ECI cannot deregister parties or punish paid news, and relies on a non statutory code; giving it these specific powers would be better than stretching Article 324.
• Trust in machines and rolls. Greater VVPAT audits, published standards and due process in roll revisions protect both accuracy and confidence.

Common confusions

• ECI and State Election Commissions. The ECI runs elections to Parliament, Assemblies and the two highest offices; State Election Commissions under Articles 243K and 243ZA run local body polls.
• MCC and the law. Breaking the MCC is not in itself an offence; many of its rules overlap with corrupt practices and electoral offences, which are enforced through courts.
• Roll revision and citizenship determination. The ERO decides eligibility for the roll; deciding nationality belongs to the authorities under citizenship and foreigners law.

For the exam

• Keyword bank: Article 324, Mohinder Singh Gill, multi member Commission, Anoop Baranwal, CEC Act 2023, Model Code of Conduct, Lal Babu Hussein, Special Intensive Revision, VVPAT, burnt memory check, totaliser, electoral bonds, state funding, simultaneous elections, appointed date.
• Practise the previous year questions on this topic →
• Use in an answer:
  • Introduction with data: "Lok Sabha and Assembly elections were held together four times, from 1951 to 1967, before early dissolutions broke the cycle that the Kovind Committee proposed in 2024 to restore."
  • Introduction with a judgement: "In Mohinder Singh Gill (1978) the Supreme Court described Article 324 as a reservoir of power where the law is silent, which is why the Model Code of Conduct works without a statute."
  • Conclusion: "The Commission's authority rests less on its legal powers than on trust, which an independent appointment process and transparent technology must keep renewing."
  • Conclusion: "Electoral reform in India has moved slowly through Parliament and quickly through the courts; lasting change needs Parliament to act on reports it already has."