Judiciary’s Role In Electoral Reforms In India

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T20:26:29.98+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:07:45.614Z

JUDICIARY’S ROLE IN ELECTORAL REFORMS IN INDIA

Manvika Koshal, RGNUL

ABSTRACT

The role of impartial and fair in elections is vital in sustaining a democracy. Elections are means to express the will of the governed. The democracies across the world lay emphasis on fairness in election processes, adult franchise, conducting elections periodically, etc. , these principles are the essence of modern representative governments. Judiciary has played an indispensable role in bringing electoral reforms in India for the sustenance of democratic ideals. Issues like paid news, NOTA and electoral bonds have been dealt by the judiciary. Keywords: Elections, Electoral reforms, Judiciary. Introduction: Judiciary of our nation is not only tasked with conflict resolution but also with protecting fundamental rights of citizens as well as upholding the mandate of the constitution.

Considered as the supreme defender of justice and truth, the apex court is a beacon of hope for the people. "Yato Dharma Tato Jaya," symbolizes steadfast dedication of Judiciary to maintaining the principles of the Constitution. With extensive power vested in form of judicial review, the SC is staunchly defending the freedoms and rights of its people. Judiciary has been instrumental in ensuring electoral processes remain blemish free. Electoral reforms refer to evolution of election laws to bring progressive transformations. For reforming the country’s governance, it must be seen that true mandate of public is not lost in wake of dirty politics. Fair elections ensure that politicians who enter the political arena represent the majority mandate of electorates.

It has become imperative to revolutionize the process by eradicating practices like corruption, bribery, booth capturing, rigged elections, etc. , and ensuring the fulfilment of democratic and constitutional ideals. Election Provisions under Constitution: Indian Constitution contains provisions related to elections under part XV. Several provisions regulating elections are contained under Articles 324-329. Provisions regarding Election Commission, one electoral roll, adult suffrage, etc. are contained in the Constitution of India. 1 • Article 324: Electoral Roll’s preparation is a sine qua non for conducting the elections. This duty is enjoined upon the ECI. • Article 325: For every territorial Constituency there must be a general Electoral Roll, and discrimination is barred on grounds of religion, race, cast & sex. • Article 326: Voter’s age must be 18 years or more.

• Article 327: Laws can be enacted by parliament for election-related matters e. g. , Representation of People’s Act, 1951. • Article 328: Power is vested in States for enacting election-related laws in their respective states. • Article 329: Court’s jurisdiction is barred in dealing with certain matters related to election like delimitation. • Article 329-A: Special provisions regulating election of PM and Speaker. 2 Challenges Surrounding Elections: India grapples with various issues undermining the fairness and authenticity of electoral process. Judiciary safeguards the democratic ideals and protects the sanctity of elections in India. Judiciary plays a pivotal role in dealing with challenges polluting and plaguing elections in India. • Money power: It entails spending of exorbitant sums on elections by candidates to sway election results in their favour.

Buying the vote bank, leads to unfair competition and undermines the Constitutional spirit. • Criminalization: The democratic fabric is threatened by the infiltration of criminal

1 Durga Das Basu, Comparative Constitutional Law (Lexis Nexis, New Delhi, 2021).

2 Narendra Kumar, Constitutional Law of India (Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, 2011).

elements into the political sphere. Politicians with criminal antecedents frequently exploit the power endowed upon them for ulterior purposes, perpetuating an ugly state of lawlessness and impunity. • Muscle power: Another menace engulfing election arena is using muscle power to coerce voters. This practice corrodes free and fair expression. • Governmental machinery’s misuse: Party in power often uses the resources at its disposal to ensure its victory in elections. Using the Government exchequer and vehicles for campaigning and advertisements improves the prospects of winning. Leveraging state facilities and resources for campaigning poses a substantial threat to fairness of elections. • Communalism: Spreading communal hatred and gaining votes by communal polarization of masses is a regular practice in elections.

It poses a serious threat to the secular and egalitarian fabric of the country. It is incumbent upon judiciary to curb instances of hate speeches, communal violence to uphold the secular ethos of Indian polity. • Casteism: Voting on basis of caste affiliation is yet another shortcoming that weakens the democratic ideals and disables the deserving candidate from winning elections. • Devoid of Moral values: Corruption and moral degeneration has clouded the political sphere of our country; money and power are prime considerations for people entering this arena, leading to the degeneration of electoral process in the country. Role of Supreme Court: Apex court’s contribution in introducing electoral reforms is unfathomable. Indian judiciary has ensures fulfilment of constitutional ethos. Fairness in the electoral process becomes imperative for fulfilling the mandate of the electorates.

To protect the substance and spirit of democracy, elections must be free of monetary and muscle influences. Judiciary has taken several initiatives to revolutionize the electoral system. The Election Commission has also taken ample steps to introduce reforms in electoral prospects in the country. The apex court has time and again issued directives on issues like NOTA, Model Code of Conduct, criminalization of politics, electoral bonds, etc. Judicial pronouncements and electoral reforms: • Meaning of Election: The historic ruling in the Ponnuswami3 case in 1952, came just before the first general elections. The decision made here made it clear that the definition of "election" in Article 329 (b) includes the whole electoral process, from the publication of the notice calling for the election to the announcement of the outcomes.

• Election Commission’s Advisory Jurisdiction: President or Governor before deciding matters as to disqualification under Articles 103 and 192; have to seek Election Commission’s opinion. The apex court in Brundaben Nayak v. ECI (1965)4 elucidated on the issue of an advisory jurisdiction of Election Commission. The opinion becomes binding when rendered by the election commission in consonance with mandate of the above-stated articles. • Right to Information: As the new millennium approached, several significant decisions that protected and expanded the voting rights were handed down by judiciary. The case titled UOI v. Association of Democratic Reform5, pertains to reforms in the electoral field. Guidelines are provided to the election commission to call for requisite information of the candidate by virtue of Article 324.

The following information falls under the ambit: Criminal record: It includes one’s background and charges, whether pending or absolved and punishment’s duration if any. Financial record: It includes information regarding one’s assets and liability. Educational record can also be sought. The Court categorically maintained that voters had an inherent right to know about the backgrounds of candidates, including

3 N.P Ponnusowami v. Returning Officer, AIR 1957 SC 64.

4 Brundaban Nayak v Election Commission Of India 1965 SCR (3) 53.

5 UOI v. Association of Democratic Reform (2002) 5 SCC 294.

information about their criminal histories, educational credentials, and financial resources. • Forfeiture of Right to Contest Election: Jan Chukidari6 judgement of 2004, stipulated that those in judicial and police custody can’t contest elections. It was clarified that only persons in preventive detention retain their right to cast votes, others forfeit such rights. These reforms ensure that elections in the country steer clear of criminals. • Paid News: To check the paid news phenomenon i. e. publishing positive news in consideration for money, the Election Commission issued directives in 2008 & 2012. In the case of Gemini TV7, SC issued directions for monitoring political advertisements during elections to the Election Commission. In 2012 Media Certification and Monitoring Committees were set up to regulate and monitor paid news in media both at state and district level.

• NOTA: In the People’s Union of Civil Liberties8, the option of NOTA was introduced. Voters must be accorded the choice of rejecting all the candidates if they desire or believe them to be unworthy. Having NOTA’s option would be helpful in cleansing politics of unwanted candidates and it would enable political parties to give tickets to suitable candidates only. This novel approach improved the democratic process by giving voters a voice to voice their displeasure of a candidate's selection. • Convicted MPs and MLAs: The apex court in 2013 in Lily Thomas9 stuck 8(4) of RPA, 1951 as unconstitutional. Post Lily Thomas case in July 2013, a clause that allowed convicted MPs and MLAs to continue in the legislative organs while their appeals were underway were declared unconstitutional.

• Ministers not to have Criminal Records: The PM and the Chief Ministers were advised by the SC in 2014 not to designate people with criminal records as ministers. The Court emphasized how important it is to preserve the integrity of their oath of office. Notably, recent major rulings have included defining the appointment procedure for the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, demonstrating the

6 Jan Chaukidari v. UOI (2004) 2 BLJR 988.

7 Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Gemini TV (2004) 5 SCC 714.

8 People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2013) 10 SCC 1.

9Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) 7 SCC 653. judiciary's continued dedication to strengthening the democratic foundations and maintaining the credibility of electoral institutions. 10 • Disclosure of Information: In Krishnamoorthy11 it was unequivocally asked by the highest court of the land that criminal antecedent’s disclosure was imperative. By refraining to disclose information the candidate is ripping the electorates of their informed choice. • Election Commission’s Formation: A Supreme Court bench decided on March 2, 2023, that the PM, Leader of the Opposition, and CJI will form a three-person panel to choose Election Commissioners and Chief Election Commissioners. 12 Nevertheless, a new law in 2024 replaced the CJI with a Union cabinet member in place of the former.

Even though Court criticized for appointing two Election Commissioners so quickly, it decided not to get involved. 13 • Electoral Bonds: In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India14, A fivejudge panel led by Indian Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud declared the electoral bonds unlawful on February 15, 2024. This initiative was implemented in 2017 and allowed political donors to hide their identities while staying anonymous. The Court determined that the plan violated the Constitution's Article 19(1)(a). After the Court's decision, there was increased scrutiny of electoral bonds, which led the SBI to release information about electoral bond transactions. Critical Analysis: Any democracy that wants to survive must embrace reforms and transformations, and electoral reforms are no exception.

Plethora of judgements have been rendered by judiciary to deal with election related issues, ramifications of these decisions have certain advantages and 10 J. Venkatesan, “Chargesheeted Persons should Not be Ministers: Supreme Court” The Hindu, Aug. 27, 2014.

11 Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar &Ors, AIR 2015 SC 1478.

12 Supreme Court Verdict on ECI Appointments, available at

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/supreme-court-verdict-on-election-commission-ofindia-appointments-8476545/ (last visited on May 2, 2024).

13 Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Appointment of Election Commissioners, available at

https://www. indiatoday. in/law/story/supreme-court-refused-stay-appointments-of-election-commissioners- 2515220-2024-03-15 (last visited on May 3, 2024). 14Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 880 of 2017. disadvantages. Noteworthy rulings like the one prohibiting anyone under custody from contesting election. Although it is admirable that the decision aims to protect the integrity of the democratic process, it raises questions about judicial overreach. Further, decisions like NOTA and regulation of paid news are prerogatives of executive and judiciary embarking into those arenas further blurs separation of powers. The Court may be perceived as invading the legislative and executive branches. The delicate balance between judicial activism, legislative and executive authority must be preserved.

The decisions rendered by the Supreme Court regarding electoral changes show a dedication to bolstering democracy, but they also bring up significant issues regarding the limits of judicial power and the requirement for a fair system of government. Judicial activism and institutional integrity must be carefully balanced in order to protect and advance democratic ideals. Electoral reforms can be gauged by quotient based on accountability, openness, and public confidence it instills the democratic process. Conclusion: Judicial intervention’s impact on improving the electoral process is unfathomable. In spite of being criticized, judiciary has continued playing a pro-active in encouraging electoral reforms in India. Judgments rendered from time to time have induced reforms in the election process in the country.

The introduction of NOTA, increasing the powers of the Election Commission, and handling issues like the criminalization of politics are attributed to judiciary’s unflinching efforts. Judiciary yields enormous potential to catalyze important reforms and address the shortcoming and challenges surrounding elections in India. Through prudent interpretation of laws, coupled with proactive approach, the judiciary can uphold the sanctity and integrity of elections and guarantee flourishing democracy in India.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 880 of 2017. • Brundaban Nayak v Election Commission Of India 1965 SCR (3) 53. • Durga Das Basu, Comparative Constitutional Law (Lexis Nexis, New Delhi, 2021). • J. Venkatesan, “Chargesheeted Persons should Not be Ministers: Supreme Court” The Hindu, Aug. 27, 2014. • Jan Chaukidari v. UOI (2004) 2 BLJR 988. • Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar &Ors, AIR 2015 SC 1478. • Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) 7 SCC 653. • Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Gemini TV (2004) 5 SCC 714. • N. P Ponnusowami v. Returning Officer, AIR 1957 SC 64. • Narendra Kumar, Constitutional Law of India (Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, 2011). • People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2013) 10 SCC 1. • Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Appointment of Election Commissioners, available at: https://www. indiatoday.

in/law/story/supreme-court-refused-stay-appointments-ofelection-commissioners-2515220-2024-03-15 (last visited on May 3, 2024). • Supreme Court Verdict on

ECI Appointments, available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/supreme-court-verdict-onelection-commission-of-india-appointments-8476545/ (last visited on May 2, 2024). • UOI v. Association of Democratic Reform (2002) 5 SCC 294.