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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: “Elections, Delimitation”

  • Tracing voters in an ever evolving city

    Why in the News?

    With the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls underway, Bengaluru’s Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and voters are struggling to reconcile 2002 records against a city transformed by two decades of migration and urbanisation. This exposes gaps in the exercise’s design.

    Why is Bengaluru’s SIR harder to execute than the Election Commission’s own justification would suggest?

    1. The Commission’s stated rationale is also the source of the problem: The Election Commission of India (ECI) says SIR is needed because urbanisation and migration have altered the electoral rolls; those very factors make verification difficult.
    2. Scale of the exercise: Bengaluru has over 1.03 crore voters, about one-sixth of Karnataka’s 5.54 crore electorate, verified by 8,972 Booth Level Officers (BLOs) drawn from nearly every government department.
    3. A city transformed since the last revision: Areas such as Whitefield and Mahadevapura were not major urban corridors in 2002, and Assembly constituencies have since been redrawn.

    What specific implementation gaps are voters and BLOs facing?

    1. A language barrier baked into the form: Karnataka’s enumeration forms are printed only in Kannada, unlike Telangana, which provides Telugu, English, and Urdu forms in the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) area.
    2. Documentation breaks for migrants and gig workers: Migrant workers, gig workers, and residents of slum settlements face repeated form rejections, especially when they maintain permanent residence elsewhere or fear losing welfare benefits linked to voter identity documents.
    3. Uneven institutional response: The State Government’s doorstep delivery of Permanent Residence Certificates (PRCs) and caste certificates has not resolved uncertainty because election authorities have not clarified whether a PRC alone is sufficient during the claims and objections stage.
    4. A precedent that narrows, not widens, acceptance: In West Bengal’s SIR, Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) accepted only PRCs issued under the 1999 Rules, not all PRCs.

    Why do the officially reported numbers understate the exercise’s real difficulty?

    1. Distribution numbers can mislead: Additional District Election Officers noted that BLOs sometimes deliver forms to multiple addresses of suspected duplicate voters because they cannot verify the person’s actual residence, inflating the ASDDO (Absent, Shifted, Duplicate, Dead, Other) category.
    2. Digitisation, not distribution, is the real progress marker: As of 22 July, only 31.28% of forms within the Greater Bengaluru Authority had been digitised, compared with 67.23% statewide, despite 25.47 lakh voters already being flagged under the ASDDO category.
    3. BLOs report pressure to inflate completion, not accuracy: Officials stated that BLOs face pressure from Booth Level Agents (BLAs) and Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) to complete digitisation, regardless of whether the underlying data is accurate.

    Conclusion

    Bengaluru’s SIR challenges reflect a design problem, not merely a data entry problem. The same migration, urbanisation, and demographic churn cited by the Election Commission to justify the revision also make it difficult to accurately verify a mobile, multilingual, and undocumented population within a fixed timeline. The central question is whether success should be measured by timely completion or by the accuracy of electoral rolls.

    Back2Basics

    1. Special Intensive Revision (SIR): A comprehensive Election Commission of India (ECI) exercise to re-verify and update electoral rolls from the ground up, distinct from the routine summary revision.
    2. Booth Level Officer (BLO): A government employee assigned to a specific polling booth area, responsible for door to door verification, form distribution, and updating electoral rolls during revision exercises.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees with particular reference to “One Nation, One Election” principle.

    Linkage: The PYQ examines the need for electoral reforms to strengthen the integrity, inclusiveness, and credibility of India’s electoral process. The article highlights implementation challenges in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, underscoring the need for voter registration and roll management reforms

  • Consider the following statements

    Consider the following statements:
    1. The Legislative Assembly of each State shall consist of not more than 450 members chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in the State.
    2. A person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislative Assembly of a State if he/she is less than 25 years of age.

  • Consider the following statements

    Consider the following statements:
    1. The Election Commission of India is a ‘ five-member body.
    2. Union Ministry of Home Affairs decides the election schedule for the conduct of both general elections and bye-elections.
    3. Election Commission resolves the disputes relating to splits/mergers of recognized political parties.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

  • Consider the following statements

    Consider the following statements:
    1. According to the Constitution of India, a person who is eligible to vote can be made a minister in a State for six months even if he/she is not a member of the Legislature of that State.
    2. According to the Representation of People Act, 1951, a person convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for five years is permanently disqualified from contesting an election even after his release from prison.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  • Consider the following statements

    Consider the following statements:

    1.In India, there is no law restricting candidates from contesting in one Lok Sabha election from three constituencies.
    2.In the 1991 Lok Sabha Election, Shri Devi Lal contested from three Lok Sabha constituencies.
    3. As per the existing rules, if a candidate contests in one Lok Sabha election from many constituencies, his/her party should bear the cost of bye-elections to the constituencies vacated by him/her in the event of him/her winning in all the constituencies.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  • Supreme Court Dismisses Meenakshi Natarajan’s Plea Against Rejection of Rajya Sabha Nomination

    Why in the news?

    The Supreme Court dismissed Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s plea challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh, reiterating that courts should not ordinarily interfere in an ongoing electoral process.

    Background

    • Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan was the party’s sole candidate for one of the three Rajya Sabha seats from Madhya Pradesh.
    • The Returning Officer (RO) rejected her nomination on 9 June 2026 for allegedly failing to disclose a pending criminal proceeding in Hyderabad in Form 26 (election affidavit).
    • Subsequently, BJP candidates Tarun Chugh, Rajneesh Agrawal, and Mahesh Kewat were elected unopposed.

    Key Constitutional Principle

    • Article 329(b) of the Constitution: Bars judicial interference in electoral matters during the election process.
    • Provides that elections to Parliament or State Legislatures can be challenged only through an election petition in the manner prescribed by law.

    Supreme Court’s Ruling

    • The Court held that it had no jurisdiction under Articles 32 or 226 to interfere with the RO’s decision during an ongoing election.
    • Recognising exceptions for “patent” or “glaring” errors would amount to adding principles not envisaged under Article 329(b).
    • The appropriate remedy available to Ms. Natarajan is to file an election petition before the competent High Court.

    Reliance on Precedent

    • N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer: Established the principle of non-interference during the electoral process.
    • Election-related disputes arising before completion of elections must ordinarily be resolved through election petitions.

    Arguments by Meenakshi Natarajan

    • Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi argued that: The RO committed a “patent error”.
      • Under Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, disclosure is required only in cases where charges have been framed.
      • Allowing her candidature would facilitate, rather than obstruct, free and fair elections.

    Counter Arguments

    • Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that:
      • The right to contest elections is a statutory right, not a fundamental right.
      • Therefore, an Article 32 petition is not maintainable.
    • The Election Commission of India contended that:
      • All pending criminal proceedings must be disclosed, irrespective of the stage of the case.
      • The proper remedy is an election petition.

    Court’s Clarification

    • The dismissal of the writ petition will not prejudice any election petition that Ms. Natarajan may file before the concerned High Court.

    Prelims Pointers

    • Article 329(b): Election disputes can be challenged only through election petitions.
    • Article 32: Remedy for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
    • Article 226: High Courts’ writ jurisdiction.
    • Section 33A, Representation of the People Act, 1951: Disclosure of criminal antecedents by candidates.
    • Form 26: Affidavit containing details relating to assets, liabilities, educational qualifications, and criminal cases.
    • Returning Officer (RO): Scrutinises nomination papers and conducts the election process.

  • Why is Nicobar debating elections

    Why in the News?

    The Andaman and Nicobar Administration has released the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Tribal Councils (Preparation of Electoral Rolls and Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2026, proposing formal elections for Nicobarese Village Councils and Tribal Councils. This is a major development because, for the first time, the administration seeks to replace a predominantly consensus-based indigenous governance model with a structured electoral system involving constituencies, electoral rolls, nominations, withdrawals, reserved seats for women, and fixed election procedures. 

    How does the traditional Nicobarese governance system function?

    The Nicobarese community inhabiting the Nicobar Islands has historically governed itself through Village Councils and Tribal Councils rooted in customary traditions. While the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes) Regulation, 1956 (ANPATR) and the Nicobar Islands Tribal Council (Regulation), 2009 provided statutory recognition to these institutions, leadership selection largely continued through consensus and community consultations.

    1. Recent Institutional Evolution: While village captaincy has existed for generations, the Tribal Council emerged only in the 1990s primarily to facilitate coordination with government development programmes and poverty alleviation initiatives.
    2. Village-Centred Governance: Ensures local administration through village-based institutions that have historically managed social, economic, and community affairs.
    3. Tribal Council Structure: Provides island-level coordination through representatives drawn from various villages across the Nicobar group of islands.
    4. Tuhet System: Traditional Nicobarese society is organised around extended kinship groups called Tuhets, which historically served as the foundation of social organisation and leadership selection.
    5. Community Representation: Village Captains emerged as intermediaries between Tuhet-based communities and external administrative authorities.
    6. Customary Leadership: Ensures community legitimacy through socially recognised leadership rather than formal electoral competition.
    7. First Captain Institution: Functions as the principal village leader and acts as the primary interface between the community and administration.
    8. Collective Decision-Making: Facilitates consensus-based governance through village meetings and consultations rather than majoritarian voting.
    9. Administrative Linkage: Supports implementation of government schemes through tribal institutions, making them an important bridge between communities and the district administration.

    How are leaders currently selected in Nicobar?

    1. Consensus-Based Selection: Ensures community acceptance through public consultations and collective agreement.
    2. Village Meetings: Facilitates leadership identification through open participation of community members.
    3. Captain System: Provides leadership through Village Captains headed by a First Captain in each village.
    4. Community Legitimacy: Strengthens trust as leaders derive authority from customary acceptance rather than electoral competition.
    5. Tribal Council Chairperson Selection: Traditionally occurs through consensus among representatives rather than a formal electoral contest.
    6. Social Leadership Model: Treats leaders as custodians of community welfare rather than political representatives.

    What changes do the 2026 Draft Rules propose?

    1. Statutory Basis: The draft rules derive authority from the Nicobar Islands Tribal Council Regulation, 2009, which formally recognised Tribal Councils and Village Councils while preserving significant customary practices.
    2. First Electoral Framework: The 2026 Draft Rules represent the first detailed attempt to operationalise elections under the 2009 Regulation.
    3. Formal Elections: Introduces structured elections for Village Councils and Tribal Councils.
    4. Electoral Rolls: Establishes official voter lists for conducting elections.
    5. Constituency Delimitation: Creates constituency-based representation for council elections.
    6. Nomination Procedures: Prescribes rules for filing, scrutiny, withdrawal and conduct of elections.
    7. Reserved Representation: Introduces reservation of seats and leadership positions for women.
    8. Five-Year Tenure: Establishes a fixed electoral cycle for councils.
    9. Codified Governance: Replaces informal customary procedures with legally prescribed electoral mechanisms.
    10. Administrative Oversight: Expands the role of formal administrative structures in local governance processes.

    Why are tribal councils opposing the proposed electoral model?

    1. Erosion of Customary Governance: Weakens traditional decision-making systems embedded within Nicobarese society.
    2. Administrative Override Powers: The 2009 Regulation already permits district authorities to veto council decisions deemed injurious to public interest, creating concerns about excessive administrative influence over tribal institutions.
    3. Loss of Consensus Culture: Replaces collective agreement with competitive electoral politics.
    4. Institutional Transformation: Converts social leadership positions into formal political offices.
    5. Reduced Community Control: Increases bureaucratic influence over local governance structures.
    6. Threat to Indigenous Identity: Alters institutions that have evolved alongside Nicobarese cultural traditions.
    7. Development Project Concerns: Some tribal leaders fear the proposed governance restructuring could weaken community resistance to major projects such as the ₹81,000-crore Great Nicobar development initiative, including the transshipment port and associated infrastructure.
    8. Consultation Deficit: Raises concerns regarding insufficient community engagement before introducing major institutional reforms.

    How have tribal institutions evolved historically?

    1. Colonial Origins of Captaincy: Emerged during British rule when colonial administrators sought village representatives for communication and administration.
    2. Clan-Based Foundations: Developed within the traditional social structure organised around extended family groups.
    3. Institutional Adaptation: Combined customary norms with evolving administrative requirements over time.
    4. Tribal Council Formation: Expanded in the 1990s to facilitate interactions with government agencies and development programmes.
    5. Statutory Recognition: Received legal backing through the 2009 Nicobar Islands Tribal Council Regulation.

    What constitutional and governance issues does the debate raise?

    1. Tribal Self-Governance: Examines the extent of autonomy available to indigenous communities.
    2. Democratic Representation: Evaluates whether formal elections improve accountability and participation.
    3. Customary Institutions: Questions how traditional governance systems should coexist with modern democratic frameworks.
    4. State Intervention: Assesses limits of administrative involvement in indigenous governance structures.
    5. Inclusive Representation: Considers the potential benefits of women’s reservation and wider political participation.
    6. Cultural Preservation: Balances democratic reforms with protection of tribal traditions.

    Can formal elections strengthen governance in Nicobar?

    Potential Benefits

    1. Transparency: Establishes clear procedures for leadership selection.
    2. Accountability: Enables periodic review of leadership through fixed electoral cycles.
    3. Women’s Representation: Expands participation through reserved positions.
    4. Legal Certainty: Reduces ambiguity regarding authority and tenure.
    5. Administrative Coordination: Facilitates interaction between government institutions and tribal bodies.

    Potential Risks

    1. Political Polarisation: Introduces electoral competition into traditionally consensus-driven societies.
    2. Customary Erosion: Weakens indigenous institutions developed over generations.
    3. Bureaucratisation: Shifts authority from community norms to administrative procedures.
    4. Social Fragmentation: Risks creating factional divisions within small island communities.

    Conclusion

    The proposed electoral reforms in Nicobar are not merely an administrative exercise but a test of India’s approach towards indigenous self-governance. The challenge lies in ensuring that democratic institutionalisation strengthens rather than displaces traditional systems that have historically provided social cohesion and local legitimacy. A consultative and culturally sensitive approach will be essential to harmonise constitutional values with tribal aspirations.

    Value Addition

    UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), 2007

    1. Self-Governance Rights: Recognises the right of indigenous communities to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions.
    2. Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC): Requires meaningful consultation before decisions affecting indigenous communities are implemented.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2013] The PESA Act, 1996 is a landmark legislation for tribal self-governance. Critically examine its implementation and effectiveness.

    Linkage: The PYQ deals directly with tribal autonomy, customary institutions and grassroots self-governance. The Nicobar debate revolves around whether traditional tribal governance systems should continue to function through customary practices or be reshaped through formal electoral mechanisms. The core issue in both cases is the protection of tribal self-rule while ensuring democratic accountability.

  • Which one of the following is the largest (area wise) Lok Sabha constituency

    Which one of the following is the largest (area wise) Lok Sabha constituency?

  • With reference to the Delimitation Commission, consider the following statements

    With reference to the Delimitation Commission, consider the following statements:
    1. The orders of the Delimitation Commission cannot be challenged in a Court of Law.
    2. When the orders of the Delimitation Commission are laid before the Lok Sabha or State Legislative Assembly, they cannot effect any modifications in the orders.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  • For election to the Lok Sabha, a nomination paper can be filed by

    For election to the Lok Sabha, a nomination paper can be filed by