Committees on Electoral Reforms

Over the decades, numerous committees and commissions have meticulously examined India's electoral system, its machinery, and the processes governing elections. These bodies have offered critical recommendations to strengthen transparency, integrity, and efficiency. The key ones, listed chronologically, are as follows:

  1. The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Amendments to Election Laws (1971–72), which scrutinized potential changes to existing legislation.
  2. The Tarkunde Committee, appointed in 1974 by Jayaprakash Narayan during his "Total Revolution" movement; this unofficial panel delivered its report in 1975.
  3. The Dinesh Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms (1990), focused on systemic improvements.
  4. The Vohra Committee on the Nexus between Crime and Politics (1993), highlighting links between criminal elements and political spheres.
  5. Recommendations on Electoral Reforms by the Election Commission of India (1998).
  6. The Indrajit Gupta Committee on State Funding of Elections (1998), exploring public financing for campaigns.
  7. The Law Commission of India's 170th Report on Reform of the Electoral Laws (1999).
  8. The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2000–2002), chaired by M.N. Venkatachaliah.
  9. The Election Commission of India's Report on Proposed Electoral Reforms (2004).
  10. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission's Report on Ethics in Governance (2007), led by Veerappa Moily.
  11. The Tankha Committee (Core Committee), constituted in 2010 to comprehensively review election laws and reforms.
  12. The J.S. Verma Committee Report on Amendments to Criminal Law (2013), with implications for electoral integrity.
  13. The Law Commission of India's 244th Report on Electoral Disqualifications (2014).
  14. The Law Commission of India's 255th Report on Electoral Reforms (2015).

Drawing from these insightful recommendations, India has implemented a series of reforms to refine its electoral framework, machinery, and procedures. These changes can be systematically studied under four distinct phases: electoral reforms before 1996; those introduced in 1996; reforms enacted after 1996; and developments since 2010.

Lowering of the Voting Age

A landmark reform in India's democratic framework arrived with the 61st Constitutional Amendment Act of 1988, which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 years. This change extended to elections for both the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, broadening the electorate to include a vast segment of the youthful population. The primary objective was to empower these previously unrepresented young citizens, giving them a vital platform to voice their views and integrate fully into the nation's political process.

Deputation to the Election Commission

In 1988, a crucial provision was introduced to strengthen the Election Commission's authority over electoral processes. Under this rule, all officers and staff involved in the preparation, revision, and correction of electoral rolls for elections are deemed to be on deputation to the Election Commission for the duration of their assignment. During this period, these personnel fall squarely under the Commission's control, superintendence, and disciplinary oversight, ensuring seamless and impartial execution of vital election duties.

Increase in Number of Proposers

In 1988, Parliament raised the bar for nominations in elections to the Rajya Sabha and state legislative councils, aiming to deter frivolous candidatures. Previously lower, the requirement for proposers on nomination papers was now set at 10 percent of the electors in the constituency—or a minimum of ten such electors, whichever figure is less. This reform ensured that only serious contenders could proceed, filtering out non-viable entries at the outset.

Electronic Voting Machines

The adoption of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) represented a pioneering effort to streamline India's electoral process. In 1989, Parliament amended election laws to explicitly permit their use, laying the groundwork for this technological shift. EVMs made their debut on an experimental basis in 1998, deployed in select constituencies during assembly elections in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Delhi. Building on this trial, they achieved their first full-scale application the following year, covering the entire state in the 1999 Goa Legislative Assembly elections.

Booth Capturing in Indian Elections

In 1989, Indian electoral law introduced a crucial safeguard: the power to adjourn polling or even countermand an entire election if booth capturing occurs. This grave offense undermines the democratic process by disrupting fair voting. Booth capturing takes various forms, such as seizing a polling station and compelling authorities to hand over ballot papers or electronic voting machines; occupying the station and restricting voting to one's own supporters alone; intimidating or physically blocking electors from reaching the polling booth; or capturing the venue designated for vote counting. These measures ensure swift action against such manipulations, protecting the integrity of the poll.

Elector’s Photo Identity Card (EPIC)

The Elector’s Photo Identity Card (EPIC) has revolutionized India’s electoral process, making it simpler, smoother, and more efficient. In 1993, the Election Commission of India took a landmark decision to issue these photo identity cards to all registered electors across the country. The primary aim was to curb bogus voting and prevent impersonation, ensuring the integrity of elections.

EPICs are issued strictly on the basis of the electoral roll, which serves as the foundational document for voter registration. These rolls are revised annually, with 1 January as the qualifying date. Any Indian citizen who turns 18 or older on that date becomes eligible for inclusion in the roll and can apply accordingly. Once registered, they qualify for an EPIC.

This scheme operates as a continuous, ongoing process, mirroring the dynamic nature of voter registration itself. With new citizens attaining voting age daily—except during the brief window between the last date for filing nominations and the completion of the electoral process—no fixed timeline can be set for full coverage. The Election Commission remains committed to this effort, systematically providing EPICs to those overlooked in earlier drives as well as to fresh registrants, thereby strengthening the democratic fabric of the nation.

Electoral Reforms of 1996

The drive for electoral reforms in India took a significant step forward in 1990, when the National Front government under Prime Minister V.P. Singh established a dedicated committee. Chaired by Dinesh Goswami, the then Law Minister, this panel—commonly known as the Dinesh Goswami Committee—was tasked with a thorough examination of the country's electoral system. Its mandate was clear: identify key shortcomings and propose practical solutions to strengthen the process.

Submitting its report later that same year, the committee outlined a series of targeted recommendations. While not all were adopted immediately, several key measures were enacted through legislative and administrative changes in 1996, marking a pivotal moment in refining India's democratic framework. These reforms are detailed below.

Candidate Categories and Ballot Order

In India's electoral framework, candidates contesting elections are meticulously classified into three categories to ensure an orderly and fair listing of their names. These include candidates fielded by recognised political parties, those nominated by registered but unrecognised political parties, and independent candidates.

This structured sequence governs the presentation of names both in the official list of contesting candidates and on ballot papers: recognised party candidates appear first, followed by those from registered-unrecognised parties, and independents last. Within each category, names are arranged alphabetically, promoting transparency and voter convenience.

Disqualification for Insulting National Symbols

Under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, conviction for specific offences results in a six-year disqualification from contesting elections to Parliament or State Legislatures. This penalty applies to those found guilty of (i) insulting the Indian National Flag, (ii) insulting the Constitution of India, or (iii) preventing the singing of the National Anthem. These provisions underscore the legal safeguards protecting India's core symbols of sovereignty and unity.

Prohibition on the Sale of Liquor

To safeguard the fairness of elections and prevent any influence through intoxication, Indian election laws impose a complete ban on the sale, distribution, or provision of liquor or other intoxicants within polling areas. This restriction applies to every conceivable venue—be it shops, eateries, hotels, or any public or private location—and remains in force for the 48 hours immediately preceding the scheduled close of polling.

Violators face stringent penalties: imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to â‚ą2,000, or both. This measure underscores the commitment to a sober, orderly voting environment, minimizing risks of disruption or undue voter manipulation.

Proposer Requirements for Nominations

To ensure only serious contenders enter the electoral arena, Indian election rules impose specific requirements for proposers on a candidate's nomination paper in parliamentary or assembly constituencies. Independent candidates—those not sponsored by a recognized political party—must secure the endorsement of 10 registered electors from the constituency itself. In contrast, candidates backed by such a party need just one proposer. This measured distinction effectively filters out frivolous aspirants, streamlining the process and upholding the integrity of democratic contests.

Death of a Contesting Candidate

In the past, if a contesting candidate died before polling day, the Election Commission would countermand—or cancel—the election in that constituency, forcing the entire process to restart from scratch. This often caused significant delays and wasted resources. Today, however, the election proceeds uninterrupted upon the death of a contesting candidate before polling. The key exception applies when the deceased candidate belonged to a recognised political party: in such cases, the party may nominate a replacement candidate within seven days of the death. This provision, introduced to streamline elections, balances efficiency with fairness under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Time Limit for By-Elections

Under current provisions, any vacancy in either House of Parliament or a State Legislature must be filled through a by-election within six months of its occurrence. This timeline ensures prompt restoration of representation, reflecting the democratic imperative to minimize disruptions in legislative functioning. However, the rule includes two key exceptions. First, no by-election is required if the remaining term of the vacant seat is less than one year, as the brevity of the period makes it impractical. Second, the Election Commission, in consultation with the Central Government, may certify that conducting the by-election within the six-month window is difficult—due to factors such as logistical challenges or extraordinary circumstances—thereby exempting the seat from this requirement. These safeguards balance electoral efficiency with real-world constraints.

Polling-Day Paid Holiday in India

In India, ensuring voter participation is a democratic imperative, and one key provision guarantees employees a paid holiday on polling day. Registered voters working in any trade, business, industry, or establishment— including daily wage earners—are entitled to this benefit, allowing them to exercise their franchise without financial loss.

Employers who deny this holiday face a penalty of up to â‚ą500 in fines. However, an important exception applies: the rule does not extend to voters whose absence could pose a danger to life, property, or result in substantial disruption or loss to their workplace operations. This balanced approach safeguards both electoral rights and essential economic continuity.

Restriction on Multiple Constituencies

Indian electoral law imposes a strict limit on the number of constituencies a candidate can contest. At a general election—or during by-elections held simultaneously—no individual may stand from more than two Parliamentary or Assembly constituencies. This same cap applies to biennial elections and by-elections for the Rajya Sabha and State Legislative Councils, ensuring focused campaigns and preventing overextension across too many seats.

Prohibition of Arms

To ensure a peaceful electoral process, strict rules prohibit entering the vicinity of a polling station while carrying any kind of arms—a measure designed to prevent intimidation or violence. This violation constitutes a cognizable offence, allowing immediate police action without a warrant. Offenders face imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both. Additionally, any arms in their possession are confiscated, and the associated licence is revoked.

These restrictions, however, do not apply to essential election personnel such as the returning officer, presiding officer, police officers, or others specifically tasked with maintaining law and order at the polling station. This carve-out balances security needs with the smooth conduct of polls.

Streamlined Election Timeline: Shorter Campaigning Window Post-Nomination Withdrawal

In a key adjustment to India's electoral process, the minimum interval between the last date for candidates to withdraw their nominations and the actual polling day has been trimmed from 20 days to 14 days. This reform effectively curtails the post-withdrawal campaigning period, allowing elections to proceed more swiftly once the final slate of contenders is locked in, thereby enhancing efficiency in the democratic exercise.

Reforms in Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections

To curb frivolous candidacies and strengthen the electoral process, key changes were introduced in 1997 to the nomination requirements for India's highest offices. The number of electors needed as proposers and seconders for a presidential contest was raised from 10 to 50, while for the Vice-President, it increased from 5 to 20. Complementing these measures, the security deposit for candidates seeking either position was substantially hiked from â‚ą2,500 to â‚ą15,000, ensuring only serious contenders could participate.

Requisitioning of Staff for Election Duty

In 1998, a pivotal provision was introduced to bolster the manpower needs of elections, allowing the requisitioning of employees from diverse public and semi-public institutions. This measure covers staff from local authorities, nationalised banks, universities, the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), government undertakings, and other government-aided bodies, enabling their deployment for critical election duties and ensuring the seamless execution of the electoral process.

Voting through Postal Ballot

In 1999, a key provision was introduced to enable specific categories of voters to exercise their franchise via postal ballots. Under this mechanism, the Election Commission of India, in consultation with the government, notifies particular classes of persons—such as those unable to visit polling stations due to their duties or circumstances. Once notified, individuals belonging to these classes must cast their votes exclusively through postal ballots and cannot opt for any other method during elections in their respective constituencies. This ensures accessibility while maintaining electoral integrity.

Proxy Voting for Service Voters

In 2003, India introduced a vital provision allowing service voters—personnel from the Armed Forces and forces governed by the Army Act—to cast their ballots through a proxy. This facility ensures that those serving far from their home constituencies can still participate in elections without physical presence. To exercise this option, eligible voters must formally appoint a proxy using a prescribed format and notify the Returning Officer of their respective constituency.

Disclosure of Criminal Records, Assets, and Other Details by Electoral Candidates

In a landmark directive issued in 2003, the Election Commission of India mandated that every candidate contesting elections to Parliament or State Legislatures must provide comprehensive details on their nomination papers. This transparency measure aimed to empower voters with critical information about contenders, fostering greater accountability in the democratic process.

Candidates are required to disclose their criminal history explicitly. This includes whether they have ever been convicted, acquitted, or discharged in any criminal case, along with details of any imprisonment or fines imposed. Additionally, they must report any pending cases filed against them within the six months prior to nomination, where the offence carries a punishment of two years' imprisonment or more, and where a court has either framed charges or taken cognizance of the matter—complete with full particulars.

Beyond criminal antecedents, candidates must furnish a detailed inventory of their assets, covering immovable and movable property, bank balances, and similar holdings, not only for themselves but also for their spouse and dependents. They are also obligated to declare any liabilities, especially outstanding dues to public financial institutions or government entities. Finally, the educational qualifications of the candidate must be clearly stated.

To ensure the integrity of these disclosures, submitting false information in the affidavit now constitutes an electoral offence, punishable by imprisonment for up to six months, or a fine, or both. This framework, rooted in the Commission's proactive reforms, has significantly enhanced electoral transparency and public scrutiny of aspiring representatives.

2003 Rajya Sabha Electoral Reforms

In 2003, significant reforms reshaped the electoral process for the Rajya Sabha, India's Upper House of Parliament, aiming to enhance fairness and transparency. One key change eliminated the domicile requirement for candidates. Previously, aspiring members had to be registered electors in the specific state they sought to represent. Under the new rule, it became sufficient for a candidate to be an elector in any parliamentary constituency across the country, broadening the pool of eligible contenders.

The second major reform replaced the traditional secret ballot with an open ballot system, specifically designed to combat cross-voting and the undue influence of money in these elections. Now, voters affiliated with a political party must display their marked ballot paper to an authorized agent nominated by that party, ensuring party discipline while minimizing covert deals. These amendments marked a pivotal step toward cleaner and more accountable Rajya Sabha polls.

Exemption of Travelling Expenditure

A significant provision introduced in 2003 offers relief to candidates by exempting the travel expenses of a political party's campaigning leaders from their personal election expenditure accounts. This means that costs incurred by senior party figures—such as star campaigners—while supporting a candidate's efforts do not count toward the candidate's overall spending limit, helping to streamline financial accountability during elections.

A key provision introduced in 2003 ensures equitable access to essential election resources. Under this rule, the government must supply free copies of electoral rolls—along with other prescribed materials—to candidates fielded by recognised political parties during Lok Sabha and Assembly elections. This measure levels the playing field by eliminating financial barriers to obtaining critical voter data.

Complementing this, the Election Commission is required to provide specified items directly to voters in the concerned constituencies or to the candidates nominated by these recognised parties. Together, these arrangements promote transparency and fairness, enabling effective campaigning without undue costs.

Political Parties' Rights to Accept Contributions

As of 2003, Indian political parties enjoyed broad freedom to receive contributions of any amount from individuals or private companies, with the sole restriction being contributions from government-owned enterprises. To qualify for income tax relief on these funds, parties were required to report any single donation exceeding â‚ą20,000 to the Election Commission of India. In addition, contributing companies benefited from full income tax exemptions on the amounts donated, incentivizing corporate support for political activities.

Allocation of Time on Electronic Media

In a key measure introduced through a 2003 provision, the Election Commission of India mandates equitable sharing of airtime on cable television networks and other electronic media during elections. This ensures that recognized political parties receive fair opportunities to broadcast their messages, propagate their views, and directly address the electorate. The allocation of time slots is determined objectively, drawing on each party's past electoral performance to maintain balance and transparency in the campaign process.

Introduction of Braille Signage on Electronic Voting Machines

In response to persistent requests from associations representing visually impaired individuals, the Election Commission of India explored ways to enable these voters to cast their ballots independently on Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). The core idea was simple yet transformative: incorporate Braille signage—raised dots that the blind and visually impaired can read by touch—directly onto the EVMs, eliminating the need for assistance from companions.

The Commission meticulously evaluated this proposal through a series of pilot implementations. It began with a trial during the 2004 by-election to the Asifnagar Assembly Constituency in Andhra Pradesh. Building on this, in 2005, Braille features were tested in one constituency each during the Assembly elections in Bihar, Jharkhand, and Haryana. The following year, 2006, saw further trials in one constituency apiece across Assam, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, and Kerala amid their respective Assembly polls. By 2008, the initiative had gained momentum, with Braille signage deployed across all Assembly constituencies in the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi.

These phased experiments culminated in nationwide adoption. During the General Elections to the Fifteenth Lok Sabha in 2009, along with simultaneous Assembly elections in several states, the Commission rolled out Braille signage features on EVMs, marking a significant step toward inclusive and accessible democracy.

Restrictions on Exit Polls

A pivotal provision introduced in 2009 strictly curbs the conduct and dissemination of exit polls during elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. Under this rule, no individual or entity may carry out an exit poll or share its results—whether through print or electronic media, or any other means—during the specific period designated by the Election Commission of India (ECI). This ban ensures that real-time voter insights do not sway ongoing polls, preserving the integrity of the electoral process.

Violators face stringent penalties: imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both. For clarity, an exit poll refers to an opinion survey that gauges how voters have cast their ballots or aligned with particular political parties or candidates at an election. By imposing these timed restrictions, the law balances the value of post-voting analysis with the need to shield active elections from potential influence.

Three-Month Limit for Electoral Disqualification

In 2009, a key provision was introduced to streamline the disqualification process for individuals found guilty of corrupt practices during elections. This measure imposed a strict three-month time limit on the designated authority—typically the Election Commission—to forward the case to the President. The President would then determine whether disqualification was warranted, ensuring prompt action and reducing procedural delays.

Inclusion of EC-Appointed Officials

In 2009, electoral law underwent a significant expansion to curb undue influence during polls. A new provision explicitly included all officials—whether serving in government or from other backgrounds—who are appointed or deputed by the Election Commission to assist in conducting elections. These personnel now fall squarely within the ambit of corrupt practices, particularly the prohibition against candidates seeking or obtaining any assistance to advance their election prospects. This measure strengthened safeguards against misuse of authority, ensuring a level playing field for all contenders.

2009 Electoral Deposit Hike

In 2009, India took a significant step to deter non-serious candidates from cluttering elections by raising the security deposit amounts. For Lok Sabha polls, the deposit for general category candidates increased from â‚ą10,000 to â‚ą25,000, while for Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidates, it rose from â‚ą5,000 to â‚ą12,500. A parallel revision applied to state legislative assembly elections: general candidates' deposits went up from â‚ą5,000 to â‚ą10,000, and those for SC/ST candidates from â‚ą2,500 to â‚ą5,000. These hikes aimed to curb the proliferation of frivolous contestants, ensuring only committed aspirants enter the fray.

Appellate Authority within the District

In 2009, a key reform streamlined the appeals process for electoral roll disputes by introducing an appellate authority at the district level. This allowed appeals against orders from Electoral Registration Officers—issued during the continuous updation of electoral rolls—to be heard locally, rather than escalating directly to the state's Chief Electoral Officer.

Specifically, such appeals now lie before the District Magistrate, Additional District Magistrate, Executive Magistrate, District Collector, or an officer of equivalent rank. For any further redress, decisions by these district authorities can be challenged before the Chief Electoral Officer of the state, ensuring a balanced hierarchy of review.

Voting Rights for Overseas Indians

In 2010, India extended voting rights to its citizens living abroad, marking a pivotal reform in electoral law. This change empowered Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) to participate in the democratic process without needing to return to the country, provided they met clear eligibility criteria.

Specifically, any Indian citizen qualifies if their name does not appear on any existing electoral roll, they have not acquired citizenship of another country, and they are residing outside India due to employment, education, or other reasons—whether temporarily or on a more permanent basis. Such individuals are entitled to register their name on the electoral roll of the Parliamentary or Assembly constituency corresponding to their place of ordinary residence in India, as recorded in their passport. This provision ensures that overseas Indians remain connected to their roots, bridging the gap between diaspora and democracy.

Online Enrolment in the Electoral Roll

A significant step towards modernizing voter registration came in 2013, when provisions were introduced for online submission of applications to join the electoral roll. To enable this, the Central Government—after due consultation with the Election Commission of India—framed the Registration of Electors (Amendment) Rules, 2013. These rules brought key updates to the existing Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, streamlining the enrolment process and making it more accessible in the digital age.

NOTA in Indian Elections

The introduction of the None of the Above (NOTA) option marked a significant step in empowering Indian voters to express dissent without compromising ballot secrecy. Responding to a Supreme Court directive, the Election Commission of India (ECI) incorporated NOTA into ballot papers and Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). This provision allows voters who arrive at the polling booth but find none of the contesting candidates worthy of their support to formally record their choice not to vote for any of them.

The roots of NOTA trace back to 2001, when the ECI proposed amending election laws to introduce a neutral voting option for disillusioned electors. The issue gained momentum in 2004 through a petition by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), which urged the inclusion of such a provision to safeguard the right to reject all candidates while preserving secrecy. In 2013, the Supreme Court affirmed this, directing the ECI to enable NOTA on EVMs and ballot papers.

Implementation began promptly that year during the general elections to the state legislative assemblies of Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Mizoram, the National Capital Territory of Delhi, and Rajasthan. It continued in 2014 for the assemblies of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Odisha, and Sikkim, alongside the polls for the 16th Lok Sabha.

Importantly, votes cast for NOTA are excluded from the tally of valid votes when determining eligibility for candidates' security deposit refunds. Moreover, even if NOTA receives more votes than any candidate, the contestant with the highest number of votes is declared elected, ensuring the electoral process remains uninterrupted.

The Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) stands as a vital safeguard in India's electronic voting process, functioning as an independent attachment to Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). It empowers voters to confirm that their vote has been recorded exactly as intended. Upon casting a vote, a paper slip emerges, displaying the candidate's serial number, name, and symbol through a transparent window for seven seconds. The slip then automatically detaches and drops into a sealed VVPAT box. This mechanism allows any voter to challenge the outcome based on the visible slip; the presiding officer must duly note the objection, which is verified during counting if the challenge proves unfounded.

The legal foundation for VVPATs took shape in 2013, when the Supreme Court of India authorized the Election Commission of India (ECI) to roll them out progressively. Deeming VVPAT "an indispensable requirement of free and fair elections," the Court emphasized its role in bolstering vote accuracy and enabling manual audits amid disputes. The system's debut came in the 2013 bye-election to Nagaland's Noksen Assembly Constituency, followed by deployment in select constituencies during subsequent state legislative polls. In the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, VVPATs featured in eight parliamentary constituencies nationwide. Together with EVMs, they have since enhanced the transparency and reliability of India's electoral framework.

Persons in Jail or Police Custody Can Contest Elections

In 2013, the Supreme Court upheld a Patna High Court ruling that struck at the heart of electoral eligibility: individuals confined in jail or police custody lose their right to vote, rendering them ineligible as electors and thus disqualified from contesting elections to Parliament or state legislatures. This decision created a significant barrier, linking incarceration directly to the loss of candidacy.

To overturn this interpretation, Parliament swiftly amended the Representation of the People Act, 1951, introducing two targeted provisions. The first explicitly states that the mere prohibition on voting—due to being in jail or police custody—does not strip a person of their status as an elector, provided their name remains on the electoral roll. The second provision clarifies that disqualification for members of Parliament or state legislatures arises solely from grounds specified within the Act itself, excluding any other external factors.

As a result, persons in jail or police custody can now contest elections, restoring their eligibility despite their restricted voting rights. This legislative clarification ensures that incarceration alone no longer bars political participation through candidacy.

Immediate Disqualification of Convicted MPs and MLAs

In a landmark 2013 judgment, the Supreme Court of India delivered a decisive blow to the practice of convicted lawmakers evading accountability. The Court ruled that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) stand immediately disqualified upon conviction for any offense, stripping away the previous three-month grace period to appeal and seek a stay. This overturned Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which had granted sitting legislators this special reprieve—protection unavailable to ordinary citizens.

The bench's reasoning was rooted firmly in the Constitution. Articles 102 and 191 mandate that Parliament enact a single, uniform law governing disqualifications both for candidates seeking election and for incumbents continuing in office. By carving out an exception for sitting members under Section 8(4), Parliament had overstepped its authority, creating an unequal standard that undermined the Constitution's intent. As the bench observed, these articles leave no room for deferring disqualification; Articles 101 and 190 further reinforce this by explicitly barring any such delay for incumbents. Declaring the provision ultra vires, the Court emphasized that Parliament's powers are limited to identical disqualifications across the board, ensuring no privileged class among elected representatives.

Notably, the ruling applied prospectively: lawmakers who had already filed appeals in high courts or the Supreme Court against their convictions remained unaffected. This decision marked a pivotal step toward cleansing Indian politics of criminal elements, aligning electoral integrity with constitutional equality.

In response, the government introduced the Representation of the People (Second Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2013 to nullify the verdict and restore the three-month window. Facing widespread criticism, however, the Bill was ultimately withdrawn, preserving the Court's transformative mandate.

Ceiling on Election Expenditure

In 2014, the Central Government significantly raised the maximum permissible election expenditure for candidates contesting Lok Sabha seats. In larger states, the ceiling was increased to ₹70 lakhs from the previous ₹40 lakhs, while in other states and Union Territories, it was set at ₹54 lakhs, up from the earlier range of ₹16–40 lakhs. These revisions aimed to account for rising costs while maintaining financial discipline in campaigns.

Similar adjustments were made for Assembly constituencies. The limit in bigger states rose to ₹28 lakhs from ₹16 lakhs, and in other states and Union Territories, it was hiked to ₹20 lakhs from the prior range of ₹8–16 lakhs. For a detailed breakdown of state-wise limits, refer to Table 73.1 at the end of the chapter.

Photographs of Candidates on EVMs and Ballot Papers

To address voter confusion in elections featuring candidates with identical or similar names, the Election Commission of India introduced a key reform effective from May 1, 2015. In all subsequent polls, both Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and traditional ballot papers now display the candidate's photograph alongside their name and party symbol. This visual cue helps electors make informed choices, particularly in constituencies plagued by namesakes.

The measure stemmed from recurring challenges during elections, where multiple candidates sharing the same name necessitated suffixes for differentiation. While this practice offered some clarity, the Commission recognized the need for a more intuitive solution to eliminate lingering doubts at the polling booth. Photographs first appeared on ballot papers during the June 2015 bypolls for six assembly seats across five states, marking a practical debut for the initiative.

Positioned strategically between the candidate's name and election symbol, the image ensures seamless integration without disrupting the familiar layout. Candidates must submit a recent photograph—either in black-and-white or color—at the time of filing nominations. To maintain neutrality, the guidelines prohibit uniforms, caps, or dark glasses. Importantly, the absence of a photograph does not invalidate a nomination, safeguarding the democratic process from procedural hurdles. This simple yet effective step underscores the Commission's commitment to enhancing electoral transparency and accessibility.

Reforms in Political Funding: Lowering the Cash Donation Ceiling

A key reform aimed at curbing untraceable contributions came in the Union Budget of 2017, which sharply reduced the limit on anonymous cash donations from any individual to a political party. The cap, previously â‚ą20,000, was brought down to â‚ą2,000. Under this change, political parties are now barred from accepting cash donations exceeding â‚ą2,000 from a single donor without proper identification.

Donations below this threshold remain anonymous, meaning parties need not disclose donor details to the Election Commission of India. However, they must maintain internal records for all contributions above â‚ą2,000, ensuring a basic level of accountability even as smaller sums stay off the public radar. This tweak reflects ongoing efforts to balance funding flexibility with greater oversight in India's electoral finance landscape.

Lifting the Cap on Corporate Political Contributions

A landmark shift in India's electoral finance landscape occurred through the Finance Act, 2017, as announced in the Union Budget of that year. Previously, under Section 182 of the Companies Act, 2013, companies were restricted to contributing no more than 7.5% of their average net profits from the preceding three financial years to political parties. This cap has now been entirely removed, empowering companies to donate unlimited amounts to any political party of their choice.

Compounding this liberalization, the earlier mandate requiring companies to disclose such contributions explicitly in their profit and loss accounts has also been eliminated. Instead, these donations must now be reported in a separate schedule, enhancing corporate flexibility while altering the transparency framework for political funding. This reform has sparked debates on the balance between donor autonomy and electoral accountability.

The Electoral Bonds Scheme: An Overview

In 2017, the Union Budget introduced the Electoral Bonds Scheme, which the central government formally notified in 2018. Designed as a modern alternative to opaque cash donations, this initiative sought to infuse political funding with clean money and greater transparency, curbing the influence of black money in elections.

At its core, an electoral bond is a bearer banking instrument resembling a promissory note, issued without recording the buyer's or payee's name, ensuring anonymity in transactions. Only Indian citizens or entities incorporated in India can purchase these bonds, which come in denominations of â‚ą1,000, â‚ą10,000, â‚ą1,00,000, â‚ą10,00,000, and â‚ą1,00,00,000. Buyers acquire them from specified State Bank of India branches, and the purchase details remain confidential, disclosed only to a competent court or law enforcement agency in cases of registered criminal proceedings.

Eligible recipients are limited to registered political parties that secured at least one percent of the votes in the most recent Lok Sabha or State Legislative Assembly elections. These parties can encash the bonds exclusively through designated bank accounts at the authorized bank, streamlining the process and linking donations to verifiable financial trails. By channeling contributions through this structured mechanism, the scheme aimed to reform India's political financing landscape while balancing donor privacy with systemic accountability.

Foreign Funding of Political Parties

In a significant policy shift announced in the 2018 Union Budget, the Indian government permitted political parties to accept foreign funding. This change effectively allows parties to receive contributions from foreign companies, overturning prior restrictions. To enable this, Parliament amended the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010—commonly known as FCRA—by refining the definition of a "foreign company." Previously, such entities were broadly barred from donating to Indian political outfits; the tweak opened the door while aiming to balance transparency and electoral finance.