Answer

Introduction

Free and fair elections are the bedrock of any democracy. The Election Commission of India (ECI), constituted under Article 324 of the Indian Constitution, is entrusted with this sacred task. However, recent allegations by opposition leaders, especially post-2024 elections, have put the spotlight on its neutrality, transparency, and efficiency, raising questions about institutional credibility and public trust.

Body

ECI’s Role Amid Allegations of Bias and Opaqueness

• Constitutional Mandate: The ECI has plenary powers for superintendence, direction, and control of elections to Parliament and State Legislatures.
  Eg: Despite this, opposition parties alleged the ECI failed to exercise this authority in curbing hate speeches and MCC violations by ruling party leaders.
• Preparation and Revision of Electoral Rolls: As per Section 15-23 of RP Act, 1950, ECI must ensure inclusive, error-free electoral rolls.
• Enforcement of Model Code of Conduct (MCC): The MCC, although not legally binding, guides fair campaigning.
  Eg: Allegations that the ECI overlooked inflammatory speeches by top ruling party leaders undermines its impartiality.
• Vote Counting and Use of EVMs with VVPATs: The ECI oversees transparent vote counting, including VVPAT verification (SC’s 2019 ruling in N. Chandrababu Naidu v. Union of India).
• Electoral Expenditure Monitoring: The ECI must curb use of black money and undue advantage.
  Eg: Disproportionate use of resources by ruling parties, with ECI allegedly failing to enforce caps, led to a perception of regulatory inaction.
• Public Grievance Redressal and Accountability: The ECI must respond transparently to complaints under Section 77 of RP Act, 1951(regarding account of election expenses).
  Eg: ECI’s silence on multiple written complaints by the opposition was interpreted as biased and reduced public trust.

Challenges in Ensuring Free and Fair Elections

• Lack of Transparent Appointment Process: Currently, Election Commissioners are appointed by the Selection Committee consisting of PM, Leader of Opposition (Lok Sabha) and Union Minister , raising concerns about executive control.
  Eg: This issue was partially addressed by the Supreme Court in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023), where it directed a temporary three-member panel (PM, LoP, CJI) for appointments.
• EVM-VVPAT Trust Deficit: The lack of end-to-end verifiability of EVMs has raised questions about their reliability.
  Eg: Subramanian Swamy v. ECI (2013) led to the introduction of VVPATs to enhance transparency, but demands for full verification persist due to continued mistrust.
• Unequal Campaign Opportunities: Media bias, financial asymmetries, and uneven enforcement of MCC have created an uneven playing field.
  Eg: Public-funded ads and social media manipulation by the ruling party allegedly went unchecked, violating the spirit of fair competition.
• Inadequate Institutional Independence: ECI lacks financial and operational independence as it is dependent on the Law Ministry for staff and budget approvals.
• Weak Punitive Powers: The MCC is not legally enforceable, and the ECI cannot disqualify candidates for violations unless covered under statutory law.
• Error in  EPIC Cards: To some existing voter they are not issued and some have multiple EPIC issued to same voter, raising concerns over electoral process.

Reforms to Strengthen Credibility and Public Trust

• Constitutional Mechanism for Appointment and Removal of ECs: Ensure a bipartisan and transparent appointment mechanism as suggested by Law Commission’s 255th Report (2015) and upheld in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023).
  Eg: A permanent collegium system can prevent executive capture and enhance independence.
• Statutory Backing to Model Code of Conduct: Codify the MCC to make it legally binding and empower the ECI to impose penalties for violations.
  Eg: The 2nd ARC Report also recommended statutory status to MCC to ensure uniform enforcement.
• 100% VVPAT Verification or Risk-Limiting Audits (RLAs): To improve transparency, full VVPAT verification or scientifically valid sampling through RLAs should be adopted.
  Eg: Countries like Germany and the US use similar audit systems for electoral credibility.
• Independent Secretariat and Financial Autonomy: The ECI should be given an independent secretariat like the CAG or UPSC, and a charged budget from the Consolidated Fund of India.
• Real-Time, Transparent Communication: Establish a public-facing portal for complaints and actions taken, ensuring timely updates.
• Post-Poll Review and Civil Society Oversight: Introduce a formalized post-election review process with civil society participation.

Conclusion

The ECI is the constitutional guardian of electoral democracy, but its credibility is now under strain due to real and perceived biases. To sustain public faith, the institution must go beyond procedural neutrality and embrace transparency, responsiveness, and structural reforms. As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar noted, “the greatest safeguard for purity of elections, for fairness in elections” and unless the body conducting elections is trusted, the spirit of democracy itself will wither.

DOWNLOAD PDF