To make the electoral system free and fair in the world’s largest democracy, the use of money and muscle power must be curbed in the Indian context

The most important thing is to keep the electoral and behavioural dynamics free and fair, it is essential to reform them. Before touching upon the essential dimensions of reform it is imperative to know about the connotations of reform and the reforms taken so far. The knowledge is of paramount importance to formulate and proceed for further improvisation, addition, and pragmatic implementation.

The word reform by its semantic connotation means to put or change into an improved form or condition, to amend or improve by change of form or removal of fault or abuses, put an end to evil by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action and to induce or cause to abandon evil ways. In general, it means an

improvement by changing behavioural aspects and/or structure of the system.

The word reform is derived from the Latin word reform meaning improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, or unsatisfactory. The use of the word emerged in the late 18th century and is believed to have originated from Christopher Wyvill’s association movement identifying

parliamentary reform as the primary aim. It is discernible that reform is antithetical to

revolution.

Reform as such delineates a change in the present structure and behavioural dynamics to effect improvement. The question arises as to why reform? Is there any other method to make the electoral process better? In a democratic system with a constitutional framework, overhauling a process is difficult and may well nigh be impossible and not desirable. The wrong can be corrected through reforms and amendments, to improvise the process to move towards the cherished goal of a free and fair election and a better democratic setup.

In our country, the electoral process is governed by certain articles of the constitution of India, amendments, and many acts/laws and judicial pronouncements, etc. Art 324 to art 329 in the constitution of India deals with election matters in part XV of the constitution of India. Art 324 (i) rests the power of the superintendence, direction, and control of elections, etc in the election commission of India. Art 324(2) deals with the composition of the election commission. The powers and functions of the election commission as such can be delineated as administrative, advisory, and quasi-judicial. Apart from this, other acts/laws which deal with the election process are the anti-defection law, the Representation of peoples Act, 1950, (preparation before the actual election) Representation of people’s Act, 1951 (makes provisions for the actual conduct of elections).

Fifty-second Amendment Act 1985 passed Anti defection Act (the Tenth schedule of the constitution of India) to check defection (a serious malady in a democratic setup). Hon’ble Apex Court through landmark judgment also has initiated much-desired changes. In Jan chaukidari vs Union of India, 2013, S.C pronounced that all those in lawful police or judicial custody other than those held in preventive detention will forfeit their right to stand for election. In Lily Thomas vs Union of India, SC declared that those convicted are disqualified from polls.

The Supreme Court also held that voters could exercise the option of negative voting and reject all candidates as unworthy by pressing the NOTA (None of the above) option in EVM. Even the supreme court on a petition filed by advocate Subramanian Balaji challenging the state's decision to distribute freebies (promised by political parties in their manifestos) said that the freebies shake the root of free and fair polls and directed E.C. to frame guidelines for regulating the content of manifestos. S.C. in 2013 gave power to the returning officer to reject the nomination paper of a candidate for non-disclosure and suppression of information, including that of assets and their criminal backgrounds. It is seen in the plethora of judgments that the Hon’ble Apex Court has tried to touch on various aspects that plague the

electoral system. Before actually getting into the core of the problem/point, it is

necessary and imperative to have a glance over the reforms that have taken place hitherto to effect improvement in the process.

The various reforms taken up till 2000 can be listed as - lowering of voting age (61st amendment – lowering the voting age from 21 years to 18 years), increasing the number of proposers and in the number of security deposits, introducing Electronic voting machine (EVM) (first introduced in the election of Delhi, MP, and Rajasthan), disqualification on conviction, restriction on contesting from more than two constituencies, no countermanding of the election on account of deceased candidates. And the time limit for the by-election. Some important reforms carried out post-2000 are a ceiling in election expenditure and restriction on exit polls. Awareness creation, not eligible to contest in the event of conviction, etc. It is seen that these reforms have touched on some issues of the election process to change it for the better. But despite the efforts and endeavours, it has not been possible to make the process free and fair. Reform means to set things right and before setting things right it should be meticulously discerned as to where the shoe pinches.

(The author is a superannuated senior IAS officer. The views expressed are personal.)

(This is the second part of the series on electoral reforms.)