Why in the News?
The controversy over the 2024 Maharashtra Vidhan Sabha elections and how Election Commissioners are appointed has sparked a major debate about the Constitution and democracy in India.
Why is the ECI appointment process seen as favouring the executive?
- Majority Control by the Executive in the Selection Committee: The 2023 Election Commissioners Appointment Act provides a 2:1 majority to the executive in the selection committee — comprising the Prime Minister, the Home Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition. Eg: The Leader of the Opposition can always be outvoted, effectively giving the ruling party full control over appointments.
- Exclusion of the Chief Justice of India (CJI): Despite a Supreme Court directive in March 2023 recommending the inclusion of the CJI to ensure neutrality, the Act excluded the judiciary, reducing checks and balances. Eg: The SC judgment established a temporary mechanism including the CJI until Parliament enacted a law, but the law ignored this safeguard.
- Conflict of Interest: The executive, being an election contestant, is involved in selecting the very institution that is supposed to referee the elections, raising concerns about institutional bias. Eg: The same political leadership responsible for contesting elections now appoints the “umpires” (Election Commissioners).
- Lack of Public Consultation or Parliamentary Debate: The 2023 Act was passed with minimal debate and without bipartisan consensus, reinforcing the perception of executive overreach. Eg: Opposition parties and civil society groups raised concerns about non-consultative law-making affecting the ECI’s independence.
- Pending Legal Challenge on Constitutional Grounds: The Act’s constitutionality is under challenge in the Supreme Court, suggesting broader concern that it violates the principles of free and fair elections under Article 324. Eg: Petitions argue that the current process undermines the ECI’s autonomy and may violate the basic structure doctrine.
How does limited access to Form 17C affect poll transparency?
- Restricts Independent Verification of Votes: Limited access to Form 17C, which contains vote counts and voter turnout data, prevents candidates and citizensfrom verifying the accuracy of polling results. Eg: Only candidates or their polling agents receive the form, and not all candidates—especially independents or smaller parties—can afford agents at every booth.
- Blocks Public Scrutiny and Research: Without public access to Form 17C data from all polling stations, researchers, media, and civil society cannot conduct independent audits or identify discrepancies in vote tallies. Eg: Voters and watchdog groups are unable to cross-check vote counts with final results, undermining transparency.
- Raises Suspicion of Electoral Manipulation: The opaque handling of Form 17C can fuel doubts about the integrity of the electoral process, especially in close contests or in regions with a history of irregularities. Eg: In the absence of uniform disclosure, accusations of mismatched vote counts or tampering are harder to disprove, affecting public trust in the Election Commission.
Why is the Supreme Court’s role in ECI appointments significant?
- Upheld Democratic Values and Institutional Neutrality: The Supreme Court’s March 2023 judgment ensured a balanced selection committee by including the Chief Justice of India (CJI), reducing the risk of executive control over the Election Commission of India (ECI).
- Acted as a Constitutional Corrective in Legislative Vacuum: In the absence of a law under Article 324, the Court stepped in to lay down norms for appointments, reinforcing the judiciary’s role as guardian of the Constitution. Eg: The SC cited Parliament’s inaction despite multiple committee recommendations and exercised its powers to protect the integrity of electoral democracy.
What reforms can enhance transparency in India’s electoral system? (Way forward)
- Reform the ECI Appointment Process for Institutional Neutrality: Include the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in the selection committee for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners, ensuring independence from executive influence. Eg: The Supreme Court’s 2023 judgment proposed a panel of the PM, Leader of Opposition, and CJI, but the 2023 ECI Act excluded the CJI, raising concerns over impartiality.
- Ensure Public Access to Form 17C for Vote Transparency: Mandate that Form 17C, which records total votes polled, be made publicly accessible through an official digital portal, enabling citizens and researchers to verify poll data. Eg: Currently, only candidates or polling agents receive Form 17C, and many independent or low-budget candidateslack agents at all booths, limiting access to crucial data.
- Introduce Independent Audits of Electoral Rolls and EVMs: Conduct regular third-party audits of voter rolls and Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) to detect errors, manipulation, or malfunction, and improve public confidence in electoral integrity. Eg: In past elections, reports of missing names or duplicate entries in voter lists have led to allegations of disenfranchisement, especially among marginalised groups.
Mains PYQ:
[UPSC 2018] In the light of recent controversy regarding the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVM), what are the challenges before the Election Commission of India to ensure the trustworthiness of elections in India?
Linkage: This article explicitly calls for the Election Commission of India (ECI) to “disclose the entire truth that is known only to the Election Commission of India. The 2018 question, by asking about the “challenges before the Election Commission of India to ensure the trustworthiness of elections in India” amidst EVM controversy, directly aligns with the broader call for transparency.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
