— Madhukar Shyam

(The Indian Express has launched a new series of articles for UPSC aspirants written by seasoned writers and scholars on issues and concepts spanning History, Polity, International Relations, Art, Culture and Heritage, Environment, Geography, Science and Technology, and so on. Read and reflect with subject experts and boost your chance of cracking the much-coveted UPSC CSE. In the following article, political scientist Madhukar Shyam analyses the electoral reforms in India.)

Ever since the first general election was held in India in 1951-52, the country’s electoral system has evolved and matured as a result of several attempts towards electoral reforms, with one nation one election being the latest attempt. 

The electoral reforms seek to uphold the integrity and transparency of the electoral system by creating an environment that is free from manipulation, money and muscle power, and aligned with democratic values and principles of fairness and justice. 

Nonetheless, it was observed that after independence some political parties neglected key issues in the first three general elections and rather indulged in spreading lies and misinformation. As a result, some freedom fighters and many others became disillusioned with the electoral process. 

In the 1950s, the prevalence of illiteracy, corruption, caste-based politics, booth capturing and lack of advanced technology were some of the challenges faced by institutions like the Election Commission of India (ECI) in enforcing election rules.  

In the late 1970s, a movement called “Sampoorna Kranti” or total revolution was launched to bring the country’s politics back on track. However, on June 25, 1975, an Emergency was proclaimed, which lasted till March 21, 1977. This period highlighted how, contrary to the vision of the Constituent Assembly founders, debate and discussion were stifled in independent India. 

Candidates seemed more interested in securing seats in the legislative assembly and parliament than in addressing key issues. The question remains: Do the candidates follow M.K. Gandhi’s ethics-based approach, where the means justify the ends, or do they adopt Niccolo Machiavelli’s idea where the ends justify the means? In order to promote the Gandhian approach to politics, committees were formed to reform the election process in India.

The ECI attempted to address these issues and introduced changes in the election process such as the Model Code of Conduct.

a) Model Code of Conduct: According to the ECI’s book, Leap of Faith, the Model Code of Conduct was first introduced during the 1960 Kerala Assembly elections when the government attempted to develop a “code of conduct” for the political parties. The body initially released the Model Code of Conduct under the title “Minimum Code of Conduct” during the mid-term elections on September 26, 1968. Since then, it has undergone several revisions, with major updates made in 1979, 1982, 1991, and 2013.

b) Committees and reports: Moreover, several committees have been instrumental in proposing reforms to address the challenges in the electoral process. Some of the key reports included those by the Tarkunde Committee (1975), the Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990), and the Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998). 

These committees recommended significant reforms to ensure free and fair elections. Some of them have already been implemented such as mandating the disclosure of candidates’ financial, educational, and criminal backgrounds, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18, introducing electronic voting machines (EVMs), and increasing security.  

However, despite these reforms, the former Chief Election Commissioners have identified four major problems that continue to affect India’s free and fair elections.

These are the 4Ms, i.e. muscle power, money power, misinformation, and violations of the Model Code of Conduct.

Although these are not new, the question remains how have they continued to affect India’s elections despite numerous reforms? 

The Vohra Committee, chaired by former Home Secretary N.N. Vohra, was established by the P.V. Narasimha Rao Government in July 1993. The committee looked into the criminalisation of politics and the connections between Indian officials, politicians, and criminals. It submitted its report in October 1993. The report highlighted how this network was running a parallel government, and revealed the patronage criminals received from politicians across parties, as well as protection from government functionaries. 

It was further revealed over the years that individuals with criminal backgrounds were elected to local bodies, state legislative assemblies, and even Parliament. The network has affected India’s democratic process, yet it’s been difficult to dismantle it. 

Therefore, just as some freedom fighters in independent India felt disillusioned by the behaviour of political parties, a similar sentiment was also seen among the voters. Mukulika Banerjee, an anthropologist and author of Why India Votes? (2014), highlighted this feeling. She pointed out that in a country divided by social inequality, election day offers a rare experience of equality. 

According to Banerjee, “By pressing that button, I prove that I exist, even if nothing in government policy seems to remember that people like me exist.” The real issue here is the faith in democracy, which is threatened by the influence of money in the election process. How can the state effectively control the power of money in elections?

There are instances of electoral fraud such as musclemen often capture polling booths and stuff ballot boxes with votes marked in the name of their candidates. Even today, there are reports of voter intimidation, bribery, and bogus voting in the name of individuals who are not physically present. Despite these challenges, it can be said that the overall faith in the electoral process has grown, particularly due to the efforts of T.N. Seshan, India’s 10th Chief Election Commissioner. 

Between 1990 and 1996, Seshan implemented many electoral reforms that changed the face of Indian elections. He dispatched central police forces to polling stations to prevent ballot tampering, introduced voter photo ID cards, enforced spending limits, and went after politicians who attempted to bribe or intimidate voters. Seshan even made candidates remove illegal electoral graffiti. 

Most importantly, he asserted the autonomy of the ECI in a way no commissioner had done before, even though politicians accused him of arrogance and tried to undermine his authority. However, one key issue remains: how has the increasing role of money in politics affected the quality of candidates running for public office, and what risks does this pose to democracy?

To address the issue of excessive election spending, the Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998) was formed. The committee proposed state funding of elections, arguing that there was “full justification — constitutional, legal, and in the public interest”—for the measure to level the playing field, particularly for parties with limited financial resources. The committee also recommended two key limitations on state funding.

Firstly, state funds should only be provided to national and state parties that have been allocated a symbol and not to independent candidates. Secondly, in the short term, state funding should be offered in kind – in the form of specific facilities to recognised political parties and their candidates – instead of direct monetary support. 

The committee also noted that the economic situation of the country only suited partial and not full state funding of elections. However, the 1999 Law Commission of India report concluded that total state funding of elections is “desirable” so long as political parties are prohibited from taking funds from other sources. But the Commission also concurred with the Indrajit Gupta Committee that only partial state funding was possible given the economic conditions of the country at that time. 

Additionally, it strongly recommended that an appropriate regulatory framework be established for political parties, ensuring internal democracy, internal structures and the maintenance and auditing of accounts, and submission to the ECI, before state funding of elections could be considered. 

The report Ethics in Governance of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2008) also recommended partial state funding to reduce “illegitimate and unnecessary funding” in elections expenses. Similarly, the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2001) did not endorse state funding of elections but concurred with the 1999 Law Commission report, emphasising that the appropriate framework for the regulation of political parties should first be in place before state funding is considered.

Electoral bonds are bearer instruments announced in 2017, and notified in 2018 to cleanse the system of political funding. However, the anonymity of these bonds undermined the principle of transparency in political finance, as neither the donor nor the political party was required to reveal the source of funding. The lack of transparency left voters in the dark about the sources of funding that political parties use to influence elections. Therefore, the Supreme Court of India struck down the electoral bonds scheme of anonymous political funding before the 2024 general elections.

In order to shift from the ‘ends justify the means’ to the ‘means justify the ends’ approach, political parties need to support the functioning of the ECI. Internal democracy within parties and transparent criteria for selecting candidates are essential parts of this process. Additionally, open debates among political parties and contesting candidates may be organised in ways it happens in countries like the US. The ECI may also learn from T. N. Seshan, who significantly reformed the election process. 

However, with rising concerns over money power, the criminalisation of politics, and media influence, the question remains: Can electoral reforms truly create a level playing field for all candidates, and what more needs to be done to strengthen India’s democratic process/to restore faith in the democratic process? 

How did the proclamation of the Emergency in 1975 demonstrate a departure from the vision of open debate and discussion in independent India as envisioned by the Constituent Assembly founders?

How has the Model Code of Conduct, initially introduced as the “Minimum Code of Conduct” in 1968, evolved over time, and what role has it played in promoting fair elections in India?

Briefly analyse the major electoral reforms implemented on the basis of the recommendations of various committees.

The Vohra Committee report highlighted the nexus between politicians, criminals, and government officials. Evaluate its impact on India’s democratic system.

Evaluate the impact of T.N. Seshan’s electoral reforms between 1990 and 1996 on the autonomy and functioning of the Election Commission of India.

(Dr. Madhukar Shyam is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Christ (Deemed to be University), Delhi NCR.)

Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with ashiya.parveen@indianexpress.com.

Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.

Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.