💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (August Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: Representation Of People’s Act

  • Delimitation Commission for NE states and UTs

    Lok Sabha speaker has nominated 15 MPs to assist the Delimitation Commission in redrawing the Lok Sabha and the Assembly constituencies of the northeastern states and the Union Territories.

    Practice question for mains:

    Q. What is the Delimitation of Constituencies? Discuss its significance.

    What is Delimitation? Why is it needed?

    • Delimitation is the act of redrawing boundaries of Lok Sabha and state Assembly seats to represent changes in population.
    • In this process, the number of seats allocated to different states in Lok Sabha and the total number seats in a Legislative Assembly may also change.
    • The main objective of delimitation is to provide equal representation to equal segments of a population.
    • It also aims at a fair division of geographical areas so that one political party doesn’t have an advantage over others in an election.

    Legal status

    • Delimitation is carried out by an independent Delimitation Commission (DC).
    • The Constitution mandates that its orders are final and cannot be questioned before any court as it would hold up an election indefinitely.

    How is delimitation carried out?

    • Under Article 82, the Parliament enacts a Delimitation Act after every Census.
    • Once the Act is in force, the Union government sets up a DC made up of a retired Supreme Court judge, the Chief Election Commissioner and the respective State Election Commissioners.
    • The Commission is supposed to determine the number and boundaries of constituencies in a way that the population of all seats, so far as practicable, is the same.
    • The Commission is also tasked with identifying seats reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; these are where their population is relatively large.
    • All this is done on the basis of the latest Census and, in case of difference of opinion among members of the Commission, the opinion of the majority prevails.

    Implementation

    • The draft proposals of the DC are published in the Gazette of India, official gazettes of the states concerned and at least two vernacular papers for public feedback.
    • The Commission also holds public sittings.
    • After hearing the public, it considers objections and suggestions, received in writing or orally during public sittings, and carries out changes, if any, in the draft proposal.
    • The final order is published in the Gazette of India and the State Gazette and comes into force on a date specified by the President.

    How often has delimitation been done in the past?

    • The first delimitation exercise in 1950-51 was carried out by the President (with the help of the Election Commission).
    • The Constitution at that time was silent on who should undertake the division of states into Lok Sabha seats.
    • This delimitation was temporary as the Constitution mandated redrawing of boundaries after every Census. Hence, delimitation was due after the 1951 Census.

    Why more independence to DC?

    • Pointing out that the first delimitation had left many political parties and individuals unhappy, the EC advised the government that all future exercises should be carried out by an independent commission.
    • This suggestion was accepted and the DC Act was enacted in 1952.
    • DCs’ has been set up four times — 1952, 1963, 1973 and 2002 under the Acts of 1952, 1962, 1972 and 2002.
    • There was no delimitation after the 1981 and 1991 Censuses.

    Why postponed till 2026?

    • Although the freeze on the number of seats in Lok Sabha and Assemblies should have been lifted after the 2001 Census, another amendment postponed this until 2026.
    • This was justified on the ground that a uniform population growth rate would be achieved throughout the country by 2026.
    • So, the last delimitation exercise — started in July 2002 and completed on May 31, 2008 — was based on the 2001 Census and only readjusted boundaries of existing Lok Sabha and Assembly seats and reworked the number of reserved seats.

    Back2Basics: History of Delimitation in J&K

    • Delimitation of J&K’s Lok Sabha seats is governed by the Indian Constitution, but the delimitation of its Assembly seats (until special status was abrogated recently) was governed separately by its Constitution and J&K Representation of the People Act, 1957.
    • As far as the delimitation of Lok Sabha seats is concerned, the last DC of 2002 was not entrusted with this task. Hence, J&K parliamentary seats remain as delimited on the basis of the 1971 Census.
    • As for Assembly seats, although the delimitation provisions of the J&K Constitution and the J&K RP Act, 1957, are similar to those of the Indian Constitution and Delimitation Acts.
    • They mandate a separate DC for J&K. In actual practice, the same central DC set up for other states was adopted by J&K in 1963 and 1973.
    • While the amendment of 1976 to the Indian Constitution suspended delimitation in the rest of the country till 2001, no corresponding amendment was made to the J&K Constitution.
    • Hence, unlike the rest of the country, the Assembly seats of J&K were delimited based on the 1981 Census, which formed the basis of the state elections in 1996.
    • There was no census in the state in 1991 and no DC was set up by the state government after the 2001 Census as the J&K Assembly passed a law putting a freeze on fresh delimitation until 2026.

  • Election Commission of India unveils roadmap for revamp

    The Election Commission of India (ECI) is considering a series of new reforms proposed by working groups it set up in 2019. Some of them are:

    • New voting methods,
    • Capping the campaign expenditure of political parties,
    • Online registration of new voters at 17 years and
    • Ending social media campaigning 48 hours before polling among the recommendations

    Various suggested reforms

    Voters registration

    • Among the recommendations being considered is replacing all the forms for various voter services, including registration of new voter and change of address, with one single form.
    • Multiple numbers of forms create confusion and affect the efficiency in the process. It is now proposed to have a unified and simplified form for all services to voters.
    • Another recommendation was to start online registration facilities at the school or college-level for all prospective voters at 17 years of age so they can be enrolled in the electoral roll as soon as they become eligible at 18.
    • The ECI also recommended four cut-off dates in a year to enroll as a voter. Currently, January 1 is the qualifying date so those who turn 18 after that date are not eligible to vote the whole year.
    • The ECI has proposed January 1, April 1, July 1 and October 1 as the qualifying dates, while the Law Ministry has suggested two dates — January 1 and July 1.

    Electronic voter cards

    • The ECI also proposed to give out electronic versions of the voter ID card — EPIC — for convenience of voters.
    • Though not specifying the method, one of the recommendations was to look at the “possibility and feasibility of different voting methods”.
    • The IIT-Madras was working on a prototype for an Aadhaar-linked remote voting system for the ECI.
    • The Commission has already implemented one-way online transfer of postal ballots for service and implemented the same for the whole country in 2019.
    • It has been seen that approximately 30% of electors are not able to participate in elections for various reasons.
    • Some of them, as assessed in a report on facilities of domestic migrants may poll to the category of migrants who continue to remain voters at their previous locations.

    Expenditure and campaigning

    • For political parties, the recommendations included online nomination of candidates and a cap on the spending allowed by parties.
    • Currently, individual candidates are allowed a limited expenditure on campaigning.
    • Another recommendation was to impose a “silence period of 48 hours” before polling on social media and print media.
    • Campaigning on electronic media in the last 48 hours before polling is prohibited currently.

  • More psychological than an empowering voter option

    Context

    The recently-concluded Delhi Assembly elections were the 45th Assembly polls since the inception of the none of the above (NOTA) option in 2013. And Delhi, although mostly urban, is widely regarded as the microcosm of India.

    NOTA in Delhi

    • Delhi’s preference to NOTA is less than the national average.
    • From 0.63% in 2013, Delhi polled 0.39% of those favouring NOTA in 2015, a statistically significant reduction indeed.
      • It now increased to 46% in 2020; again statistically significant.
    • While 96% of the constituencies had a reduced percentage of NOTA votes in 2015 than 2013, the NOTA percentage has increased in 71% constituencies this year.
    • In the Lok Sabha elections, Delhi polled 0.47% and 0.52% of those favouring NOTA, in 2014 and 2019, respectively.
    • Takeaway: Roughly one in 200 voters of Delhi opted for NOTA in the last six to seven years, with relatively larger support for NOTA in reserved constituencies.

    Gujarat and Maharashtra examples

    • Interestingly, in the 2017 Gujarat Assembly elections, despite being 1.8%, NOTA got more votes than any political party other than the Indian National Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (except the Independents).
    • Again, in the 2019 Maharashtra Assembly election, NOTA became a runner-up in two constituencies – Latur (Rural) and Palus-Kadegaon.
    • Do these cases mark any significant shift in the voter mindset?

    Essence and scope of NOTA

    • Not a right to reject: In 2013, India became the 14th country to institute negative voting through NOTA.
      • However, it is not a “right to reject”.
    • Toothless option: NOTA in India is a toothless option.
      • Former Chief Election Commissioner of India S.Y. Quraishi, had observed in an article: “Even if there are 99 NOTA votes out of a total of 100, and candidate X gets just one vote, X is the winner, having obtained the only valid vote. The rest will be treated as invalid or ‘no votes’.”
    • Not right to select: NOTA enfeebles the electorate as it does not empower to “select” either.
    • Democratic means to express resentment: Certainly NOTA provides democratic means to express resentment anonymously rather than boycotting the polls outright.
      • A group of women activists in Kerala out on the road urging people not to elect any candidate if no woman was present in the fray.
      • A youth group in Tamil Nadu that campaigned for NOTA as a protest vote against corruption.
    • Pleas to extend the scope of NOTA: There have been pleas to extend the scope of NOTA.
      • Recommendation of re-elections: In 2018, a former CEC, T.S. Krishnamurthy, has recommended holding elections again in those constituencies where the victory margin is less than the total numbers of NOTA.
      • Right to reject in place of NOTA: A PIL has been filed in Madras High Court seeking the full right to reject in place of NOTA.

    Cases of extending the scope of NOTA

    • Maharashtra SEC order: In June 2018, the Maharashtra State Election Commission (SEC) issued an order that said:
      • “If it is noticed while counting that NOTA has received the highest number of valid votes, the said election for that particular seat shall be countermanded and a fresh election shall be held for such a post.”
    • NOTA as a fictional candidate in Haryana: In November 2018, the SEC of Haryana went a step further and issued an order where NOTA is treated like a “fictional candidate” in municipal polls from December 2018.
      • If NOTA gets the maximum vote, none of the “real” candidates will be declared elected, and the elections will be cancelled and held afresh.
      • What is more, the candidates securing votes less than NOTA would be barred from contesting in that re-election.
    • Example from Indonesia: Interestingly, in Makassar, Indonesia, the only candidate in the 2018 election for mayor received 35,000 less votes than NOTA, which forced a repeat election in 2020.

    The optimism expressed by the Supreme Court on NOTA

    • The SC’s anticipation: While introducing NOTA, the Supreme Court anticipated that “there will be a systemic change and the political parties will be forced to accept the will of the people and field candidates who are known for their integrity.”
      • Thus, its percentage should either increase to enforce the political parties to field candidates with “integrity”.
      • Or NOTA percentage should consistently decrease if the electorates feel that the system has achieved the desired level of cleansing.
    • No increase or decrease in NOTA votes: In contrast, the share of NOTA votes in India remained around a meagre level of 1% on an average; 1.11% in the 2014 Lok Sabha, and 1.08% in 2019, if we consider constituency-wise averages.
    • What this represents? This perhaps represents a confused state of mind of the electorate. Has the perceived cynicism of Indian voters regarding the right to reject been exaggerated?

    Would NOTB- None of The Below more advantageous?

    • Last option disadvantage? Is NOTA, as the last button of all EVMs in the country, a psychological issue as far as the electorates are concerned?
    • First position on ballot advantage: A 2004 article in The Journal of Politics, have discussed the possible advantage of the first position in the ballot, at least in the U.S. context.
    • NOTB instead of NOTA: Although there is no such concrete study to gauge the Indian voter’s mindset, one wonders whether using NOTB (‘none of the below’) instead of NOTA- with such an option as the first on the electronic voting machine — might produce a significantly different outcome or not.
      • An experiment, after changing the rule suitably, can be attempted, at least.

    Conclusion

    Extending the scope of NOTA by empowering it with the right to reject along with other changes like placing NOTA at the top of EVM would help in making the election process clean and fair.

     

     

     

     

  • Political parties to publish the entire criminal history of their candidates

     

    • The Supreme Court has strictly ordered political parties to publish the entire criminal history of their candidates for Assembly and Lok Sabha elections along with the reasons that goaded them to field suspected criminals over decent people.

    SC’s deadline

    • It ordered political parties to submit compliance reports with the Election Commission of India within 72 hours or risk contempt of court action.
    • The information should be published in a local as well as a national newspaper as well as the parties’ social media handles.
    • It should mandatorily be published either within 48 hours of the selection of candidates or less than two weeks before the first date for filing of nominations, whichever is earlier.
    • The judgment is applicable to parties both at Central and State levels.

    Information should be detailed

    • The published information on the criminal antecedents of a candidate should be detailed and include the nature of their offences, charges framed against him, the court concerned, case number, etc.
    • A political party should explain to the public through their published material how the “qualifications or achievements or merit” of a candidate, charged with a crime, impressed it enough to cast aside the smear of his criminal background.
    • A party would have to give reasons to the voter that it was not the candidate’s “mere winnability at the polls” which guided its decision to give him a ticket to contest elections.

    Why such a move?

    • It appeared from the last four general elections that there has been an alarming increase in the incidence of criminals in politics.
    • In 2004, 24% of the MPs had criminal cases pending against them; in 2009, that went up to 30%; in 2014 to 34%; and in 2019 as many as 43% of MPs had criminal cases pending against them, SC observed.
    • The judgment was based on a contempt petition about the general disregard shown by political parties to a 2018 Constitution Bench judgment (Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India).
    • In this judgment (2018), this court was cognizant of the increasing criminalisation of politics in India and the lack of information about such criminalisation among the citizenry”, SC observed.

    Immediate Reason

    • The immediate provocation is the finding that 46% of MPs have criminal records.
    • The number might be inflated as many politicians tend to be charged with relatively minor offences —“unlawful assembly” and “defamation”.
    • The real worry is that the current cohort of Lok Sabha MPs has the highest (29%) proportion of those with serious declared criminal cases compared to its recent predecessors.

    Why are such tainted candidates inducted by political parties?

    • Such candidates with serious records seem to do well despite their public image, largely due to their ability to finance their own elections and bring substantive resources to their respective parties.
    • Some voters tend to view such candidates through a narrow prism: of being able to represent their interests by hook or by crook.
    • Others do not seek to punish these candidates in instances where they are in contest with other candidates with similar records.

    Significance of the move

    • Either way, these unhealthy tendencies in the democratic system reflect a poor image of the nature of India’s state institutions and the quality of its elected representatives.
    • The move signified the court’s alarm at the unimpeded rise of criminals, often facing heinous charges like rape and murder, encroaching into the country’s political and electoral scenes.

    Way Forward

    • While formally, the institutions of the state are present and subject to the electoral will of the people, substantively, they are still relatively weak and lackadaisical in governance and delivery of public goods.
    • This has allowed cynical voters to elect candidates despite their dubious credentials and for their ability to work on a patronage system.
    • While judicial pronouncements on making it difficult for criminal candidates to contest are necessary, only enhanced awareness and increased democratic participation could create the right conditions for the decriminalization of politics.

  • A weak rebuke: It’s unfortunate EC didn’t punish hate speech in Delhi campaign

    Context

    Campaign for the Delhi Assembly election in which the development debate was overshadowed by hate-mongering and outpouring of communal vitriol underscores need to do more.

    Understanding the Model Code of Conduct (MCC)

    • Behavioural guidelines: It is a set of behavioural guidelines for political parties and candidates for-
      • The peaceful conduct of elections.
      • To prevent hate speech.
      • Malpractices.
      • Corruption and
      • Misuse of government machinery by the ruling party.
    • Not judicially enforceable: Since it is not an Act passed by Parliament, the Code is not judicially enforceable.
      • The action against a violator usually takes the form of an advice, warning or censure.
      • No punitive action can be taken.
      • No wonder, many consider the Code as toothless.
    • Moral authority: It is not toothless though. Its moral authority far outweighs its legal sanctity.
      • Political leaders worth their salt are scared of inviting a notice for a violation, as it creates negative public opinion.
      • Besides, unlike the legal processes, its impact is instant.

    The legality of the MCC

    • Test of legality in the courts: The legality of the code has been judicially tested.
      • First legal acceptance: Its first judicial acceptance came in 1997 when the Punjab and Haryana High Court gave the EC the power to enforce the code.
      • “Such a code of conduct when it is seen that it does not violate any of the statutory provisions can certainly be adopted by the Election Commission for the conduct of free and fair election, which should be pure as well,” the Court said.
      • The SC has repeatedly held that this must be enforced strictly.

    Parallels between the MCC and other legal provision

    • The first section of the MCC lays down that-Part 1 (1) “ No party or candidate shall include in any activity which may aggravate existing differences or create mutual hatred or cause tension between different castes and communities, religious or linguistic.”
    • “…Criticism of other parties or their workers based on unverified allegations or distortion shall be avoided.”
    • Parallels with RPA: The Representation of the People Act (1951) categorically defines the above two as corrupt practices in Section 123 (3A) and Section 123 (4) respectively.
      • Section 125 of RPA provides for punishment for similar violations.
    • Parallels with IPC: It is important to note that Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code has a similar provision:
      • Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.

     Refreshing change

    • Prompt action: It must be appreciated that the EC was prompt in its action against the leaders accused of hate speech in Delhi election campaign.
      • While it instantly, suo moto, deprived the two leaders of their star campaigner status, it also punished them with a gag order, using the ultimate weapon provided by Article 324.
      • The EC flexing its muscle outside the so-called “toothless” MCC and invoking Article 324 is indeed a refreshing change.
      • In earlier instances, it often had to let the culprits go with a mere “warning, caution or censure”.
      • In its notice to a leader, the EC cited Sections 123 and 125 of the RP Act.

    Conclusion

    • Historically, the EC has always taken simultaneous action under the Model Code of Conduct and the other two provisions. While the MCC produces instant results, the penal provisions involve endless judicial processes. Not taking action under the IPC encouraged violators to commit repeat offences.

     

  • De-criminalization of Politics

     

    The Supreme Court has agreed to examine a proposition made by the Election Commission (EC) to ask political parties to not give a ticket to those with criminal antecedents.

    Cleansing of Political Parties

    • The judgment had urged Parliament to bring a “strong law” to cleanse political parties of leaders facing trial for serious crimes.
    • The ruling concluded that rapid criminalisation of politics cannot be arrested by merely disqualifying tainted legislators but should begin by “cleansing” the political parties.
    • The court had suggested that Parliament frame a law that makes it obligatory for political parties to remove leaders charged with “heinous and grievous” crimes like rape, murder and kidnapping, only to a name a few, and refuse ticket to offenders in both parliamentary and Assembly polls.
    • It had also issued guidelines, including that both the candidate and the political party should declare the criminal antecedents of the former in widely-circulated newspapers.

    Why such move?

    • 46% of Members of Parliament have criminal records.
    • A move to steer politics away from the denizens of the criminal world would definitely serve national and public interest.
    • The EC had tried several measures to curb criminalisation of politics but failed.

  • [pib] Political Parties Registration Tracking Management System (PPRTMS)

    In order to enable applicants to track the status of the application, the Election Commission of India has launched a “Political Parties Registration Tracking Management System (PPRTMS)”.

    About PPRTMS

    • The salient feature in the PPRTMS is that the applicant, who is applying for party registration from 1st January, 2020 will be able to track the progress of his/her application and will get status update through SMS and e-mail.
    • The status can be tracked through the Commission’s portal at link https://pprtms.eci.gov.in/.

    Back2Basics

    Registration of political parties

    • Registration of political parties is governed by the provisions of Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
    • An association seeking registration under the said Section has to submit an application to the ECI within a period of 30 days following the date of its formation.
    • These guidelines are in exercise by ECI of the powers conferred by Article 324 of the Constitution of India and Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

  • Electoral Reforms In India

    Time and again, many electoral reforms have been proposed by various committees, Law Commission and ECI itself. A discussion on these crops up during every election. We’ve tried to comprehensively list the proposed reforms under various sub-headings. A brute-force memorization of all this information is not required. Go through this list so that you have a background while reading news items on Electoral Reforms and ECI.
    I.Amendment to the Constitution of India
    1. Constitutional protection for all members of the Commission.
    2. Budget of the Commission to be ‘charged’ on the CFI.
    3. Independent Secretariat for the Commission.
    II.Electoral Roll Matters
    While Army personnel are allowed to vote, Navy and Airforce are not.
    There are no provisions for overseas electors to vote despite being eligible to do so. Amendments proposed provide the option of proxy voting or postal ballot voting.
    At present, the Electoral Rolls prepared by the Election Commission are not used by the State Election Commissions leading to duplication of effort and errors costing both in terms of time and money. Common Electoral Rolls to be used in local elections was a recommendation endorsed by the Law Commission.
    III.Election Management Issues
    At present, filing false declarations about the background of the candidate attracts penalty under Section 125A of The Representation of the People Act, 1951. The offence is punishable by up to 6 months, or with fine, or with both.
    The Commission has proposed that the punishment under section 125A should be increased to 2 years’ imprisonment without the alternative clause of  fine, and also that the offence should be included in the list of offences listed in sub-section (1) of section 8 which would attract disqualification on conviction irrespective of the term if sentence. The Commission also proposed that furnishing of false affidavit or suspension of material information in the affidavit should also be specified as ground for challenging the election under section 100 (1) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951.
    In S. Subramaniam Balaji vs Govt. Of T.Nadu & Ors, the SC observed that “although, the law is obvious that the promises in the election manifesto cannot be construed as ‘corrupt practice’ under section 123 of The Representation of the People Act, the reality cannot be ruled out that distribution of freebies of any kind, undoubtedly, influences all people. It shakes the root of free and fair elections to a large degree. In this regard the EC has proposed an amendment to RPA, 1951 allowing Adjournment of poll or countermanding of elections on ground of bribery.
    IV.Election Officials and Logistics
    Use of Totalizer Machines
    EVM totalizer can count votes of multiple Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) simultaneously. This way the results of votes in a group of EVMs can be taken without ascertaining the result in individual EVM corresponding to polling booth.
    As per the present provisions in The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, votes in the EVMs are to be counted polling station wise, which leads to situations where voting pattern in various localities/pockets become known to everyone. There is a view that this can result in victimization and/or discrimination and intimidation of electors of particular localities. This issue can be addressed by use of totalizer that can be used for taking out the results of voting in a group of 14 EVMs without revealing the votes in individual EVMs.
    V.Nomination of Candidates
    Contesting the elections from 2 seats  – At present as per RPA 1951, a person is allowed to contest from 2 seats. However it is imperative that he has to vacate one of the two seats should he win both. This leads to holding by-elections which causes inconvenience to voters and financial expenditure. The amendment to RPA 1951 calls for removal of this provision of contesting from 2 seats.
    VI.De- Criminalization of politics
    2. Misuse of religion for electoral gain
    3. Making bribery in elections a cognizable offence
    VII.Reforms relating to Political Parties
    1. De-registration of political parties
    2. Tax Relief for Political Parties
    3. Compulsory Maintenance of Accounts by Political Parties
    4. Accounting and Auditing Report of Political Parties
    5. Form 24A under Rule 85B of The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961
    6. Prohibition on Anonymous Donations
    7. Sale of Coupons
    8. Maintenance of separate bank accounts by each contesting candidate for poll expenses
    9. Cap on Expenditure by Political Party on a Candidate for election campaign
    10. Ceiling of campaign expenditure by political parties
    11. Limit the Number of Star Campaigners
    12. Time period for maintaining books of account under section 77 of The Representation of the People Act, 1951
    VIII.Election campaign and advertisements
    1. Ban on exit polls and opinion polls
    2. Ban on Government Sponsored Advertisement before elections
    3. Section 126 of The Representation of the People Act, 1951
    4. Paid news in connection with elections
    5. Section 125A of The Representation of the People Act, 1951
    IX.Election Expenses and Election Petitions
    1. Ceiling on Election Expenditure to legislature from Local Authorities’, Graduates’ and Teachers’ Constituencies
    2. Election expenditure in case of adjournment of poll under section 52 of The Representation of the People Act, 1951
    3. Appointment of additional judges in the High Courts
    PDF for proposed electoral reforms –  PROPOSED ELECTORAL REFORMS