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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: RPAxElectoral Reforms

  • Criminal Cases Among Rajya Sabha MPs (ADR Report)

    Why in News?

    A report by the Association for Democratic Reforms and National Election Watch found that 31% of sitting Rajya Sabha MPs have declared criminal cases, while 16% have declared serious criminal cases in their election affidavits.

    Key Findings

    • Analysis covered 226 of 233 Rajya Sabha MPs.
      • 4 seats (West Bengal) were vacant.
      • 3 MPs were excluded as affidavits were unavailable.
    • 69 MPs (31%) declared criminal cases.
    • 36 MPs (16%) declared serious criminal cases.
    • Serious offences include:
      • 1 MP with a murder case.
      • 4 MPs with attempt to murder cases.
      • 4 MPs with crimes against women.

    Party-wise Criminal Cases

    • BJP: 28 of 107 MPs (26%), Congress: 12 of 29 MPs (41%), AITC: 2 of 9 MPs (22%), DMK: 2 of 8 MPs (25%), SP: 2 of 4 MPs (50%), TDP: 3 of 4 MPs (75%), BRS: 3 of 3 MPs (100%), CPI(M): 3 of 3 MPs (100%), RJD: 2 of 3 MPs (67%), AIADMK: 1 of 4 MPs (25%), NCP: 1 of 4 MPs (25%), and AAP: 1 of 3 MPs (33%)

    Wealth Profile

    • 31 MPs (14%) declared assets exceeding â‚č100 crore.
    • Major parties: BJP: 7 MPs, Congress: 6 MPs, YSRCP: 2 MPs, TDP: 2 MPs, BRS: 2 MPs, and NCP: 2 MPs

    About ADR

    • The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) is a non-governmental, non-partisan organization established in 1999.
    • It works to promote:
      • Electoral transparency.
      • Political and electoral reforms.
      • Informed voting through analysis of candidates’ affidavits.
    • ADR uses disclosures mandated by the Supreme Court and the Election Commission of India.

    Constitutional and Legal Background

    • Article 80: Composition of the Rajya Sabha.
    • Representation of the People Act, 1951
      • Section 8: Disqualification upon conviction for specified offences.
    • Mere pendency of criminal cases does not disqualify a candidate unless a conviction attracts disqualification under law.
    • Candidates must disclose criminal antecedents in nomination affidavits following Supreme Court judgments.

    [2020] 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?

    a . 1 only

    b . 2 only

    c. Both 1 and 2

    d . Neither 1 nor 2

  • To enhance the quality of democracy in India the Election Commission of India has proposed electoral reforms in 2016. What are the suggested reforms and how far are they significant to make democracy successful?

  • ‘Simultaneous election to the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies will limit the amount of time and money spent in electioneering but it will reduce the government’s accountability to the people’ Discuss.

  • 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?

    In Abhiram Singh vs UoI, SC has held that elections are the biggest secular and democratic event. EVMs were introduced to improve transparency and efficiency of the electoral process.

    Challenges before the Election Commission of India (ECI)

    Technical and Operational Challenges

    Allegations of EVM tampering and demand for Postal Ballot system.

    EVMs are produced by PSU’s BEL and ECIL– concerns about source code security and potential government misuse.

    Large-scale deployment increases risk of technical failure, power supply issues, and storage vulnerability.

    Institutional and Procedural Challenges

    Political polarisation has led to accusations of bias against ECI decisions (timing of elections, model code enforcement).

    Lack of transparency- Limited access for political parties and civil society to audit or inspect EVM functioning.

    Opposition parties demand 100% VVPAT verification or return to ballot papers, which the ECI has resisted citing impracticality.

    Legal and Regulatory Challenges

    Use of EVMs is governed by Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, not by a specific EVM legislation.

    Judicial scrutiny and legal disputes- Repeated petitions challenge credibility of EVMs and VVPAT counting procedures.

    Despite SC directives (2024) to improve VVPAT counting transparency and preserve paper trail records – compliance remains partial.

    Public Perception and Political Trust Deficit

    Decline in citizen confidence- Lack of understanding of EVM functioning leads to misinformation and conspiracy theories.

    Political blame culture- Losing parties often question EVM integrity, politicising the institution’s credibility.

    Social media misinformation- Viral false claims about EVM manipulation erode voter trust. Eg- “Black Box” Allegations (2024)

    ECI’s Stand

    EVMs are standalone, non-networked machines; cannot be hacked remotely.

    Rigorous mock polling, sealing, randomisation, and observer monitoring prevent manipulation.

    Technical Expert Committee (TEC) from IITs and DRDO regularly reviews EVM integrity.

    Way Forward

    Conduct independent third-party audits (IITs, NIC) of EVM software and random samples.

    VVPAT Verification – Increase sample size or audit entire constituency in disputed cases.

    Launch voter education campaigns explaining EVM and VVPAT mechanisms

    Enact a dedicated “Electronic Voting Regulation Act” ensuring independent oversight

    Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of democracy (Art. 324). Enhancing the transparency in use of EVM’s is thus essential.

  • Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees with particular reference to “one nation-one election” principle.

    Free and fair elections are the foundation of Indian democracy (Article 324). Thus, Electoral reforms are considered as ‘Mother of all Reforms’.

    Need for one nation-one election

    According to ECI, ONOE reduces frequency of MCC & ensures policy continuity

    NITI Aayog (2017): simultaneous polls can cut election-related costs by 4500 Cr due to lower administrative and security deployment, single logistics cycle, and reduced campaign spending.

    Combined elections reduce voter fatigue and improve participation, especially in urban areas.

    Stability – Aligning Centre-State electoral cycles, making governments more accountable and stable

    ONOE discourages reckless dissolution of assemblies due to high political cost.

    Check on political populism due to reduced frequency of elections. Eg- farm loan waivers

    Reduction in vote bank politics and communalism. Promote social cohesion

    Challenges

    Constitutional Amendments Needed – Articles 83, 85, 172, 174, 356

    Weak Political Consensus as regional parties fear loss of visibility.

    Synchronisation Issues – Assemblies dissolved mid-term would require caretaker governments, raising constitutional questions.

    Logistical Requirements – Twice the number of EVMs & VVPATs, enhanced storage facilities, and large-scale training.

    As suggested by the Parliamentary Standing Committee (2015), there is a need for wide political consultations.