Strengthening India’s Electoral System
The foundation of democracy lies in transparency and fairness of its electoral process
India has taken several measures to strengthen its electoral system over time, yet challenges remain. Let’s explore how the system can be made more credible and effective.
Reforms in Electoral Finance
- Partial state funding of legitimate political expenses.
- Mandatory disclosure of large donations through digital modes.
- Strict auditing by Election Commission and CAG.
- An online portal for monitoring public expenditure.
- Bringing political parties under the RTI Act.
Internal Party Democracy
- Legal requirement for regular internal elections.
- Transparent candidate selection process.
- Regular audit of party constitutions.
- An effective regulatory framework.
Digital Campaigns and Deepfake Regulation
- Disclosure labels on all online political ads.
- National-level deepfake detection cell.
- Penalties on platforms violating norms.
- Public awareness campaigns on misinformation.
Empowering the Election Commission
- Granting financial autonomy.
- Establishment of an independent permanent cadre.
- Regular audits by parliamentary committees.
Improvements in Electoral Process
- Use of Totalizer Machines.
- Common national voter list.
- Strict enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct.
Simultaneous and Continuous Elections
- Permanent national voter list and ID card.
- A fixed electoral calendar.
Conclusion
- Transparent and fair elections are the soul of democracy.
- Autonomy of the Election Commission will strengthen public trust.
- Proper use of technology is essential.
- Democratic values must be reinforced within political parties.
In India, the Central Government has introduced the 130th Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2025 in the Lok Sabha. The bill aims to remove central and state ministers who have been in custody for 30 consecutive days on serious criminal charges.
130th Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2025
Amendment: The bill proposes amendments to Articles 75, 164, and 239AA of the Constitution, which relate to the Union Council of Ministers, State Council of Ministers, and ministers of Union Territories, respectively.
Key Provisions: The law would cover ministers, including Chief Ministers and the Prime Minister. Any person held in custody for 30 consecutive days after arrest for an offense punishable with five years or more in jail would be removed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. The removal can be reversed upon release from custody, allowing the person to reclaim their position.
Objective: The bill seeks to uphold constitutional morality and good governance, ensure that ministers facing serious charges cannot remain in office, and maintain public trust.
Current Legal Framework and Judicial Viewpoint: Ministers Facing Criminal Charges
Currently, there is no automatic legal provision for removing a minister simply because they face serious criminal charges. The legal framework is based on the principle of “presumption of innocence until proven guilty.”
Existing Legal Provisions
Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA): Under Section 8 of this Act, a legislator or minister can only be disqualified if they are convicted of an offense and sentenced to at least two years of imprisonment.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: According to Section 8(1) of the RPA, if a legislator is convicted under this Act, they are disqualified for six years, even if only a fine is imposed. If a jail sentence is given, the disqualification lasts for the entire prison term plus six years after release.
Impact of Judicial Rulings
Various court cases have provided significant clarification on this issue:
Public Interest Foundation Case (2018): The Supreme Court clarified that only Parliament has the authority to legislate on disqualification or add new grounds. The court recommended that political parties refuse tickets to and revoke the membership of those accused of heinous crimes.
Manoj Narula vs. Union of India (2014): The court ruled that there is no legal bar to appointing ministers with criminal backgrounds but advised the Prime Minister to avoid choosing individuals accused of serious offenses.
V. Senthil Balaji Case (2025): The Supreme Court directed a minister to choose between his freedom and his position, as his re-appointment after bail was found to have misled the court. He subsequently resigned.
Arvind Kejriwal Case (2024): After being granted bail in a money laundering case, the Supreme Court restricted him from performing his official duties but did not force him to resign. He voluntarily resigned later.
These cases highlight that despite judicial intervention, a clear and robust legal framework for removing ministers facing serious criminal charges is still lacking.