Democratic Evolution: Key Electoral Reforms in India Since 1996 – Part 2

Democratic Evolution: Major Electoral Reforms in India Since 1996 – (Part 02)

Welcome back to our in-depth exploration of India's democratic journey, focusing on the pivotal electoral reforms that have shaped its electoral landscape. In Part 01, we laid the groundwork by examining the initial waves of reforms that strengthened the bedrock of our democracy. Now, in Part 02, we delve into the significant electoral reforms undertaken since 1996, a period marked by rapid technological advancements, evolving judicial interpretations, and a persistent societal demand for greater transparency and accountability in the electoral process.

The post-1996 era witnessed a concerted effort to address persisting challenges such as the criminalization of politics, the influence of money power, the need for greater voter awareness, and the imperative to make the electoral machinery more robust and impartial. These reforms, driven by the Election Commission of India (ECI), judicial pronouncements, and parliamentary consensus, have had a profound impact on how elections are conducted and perceived in the world's largest democracy.

This blog post will navigate through these crucial reforms, analyzing their constitutional underpinnings, the institutional mechanisms involved, landmark judicial interventions, and their contemporary relevance. We aim to provide a comprehensive understanding for students, aspirants of competitive examinations, educators, and anyone interested in the intricacies of Indian Polity.

Foundational Pillars: The Continuing Quest for Free and Fair Elections

Before we dive into specific reforms, it's essential to reiterate the constitutional and theoretical foundations that underpin India's electoral system:

• Constitutional Mandate: Part XV (Articles 324 to 329) of the Indian Constitution is dedicated to elections. Article 324 vests the "superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President" in the Election Commission of India. This broad power has been the bedrock for many reforms initiated by the ECI.
• Independent Election Commission: The autonomy and impartiality of the ECI are crucial. The reforms post-1996 have often sought to further empower the ECI and insulate it from political pressures.
• Rule of Law and Judicial Review: The judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court of India, has played a proactive role in interpreting constitutional provisions related to elections and directing reforms to ensure free and fair polls.
• Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950 & 1951: These two acts form the statutory framework for the conduct of elections in India. Amendments to these acts have been a primary route for implementing electoral reforms.

Key Electoral Reforms Since 1996: A Detailed Examination

Let's dissect the major electoral reforms introduced since 1996, analyzing their objectives, provisions, and impact.

1. Disclosure of Criminal Antecedents, Assets, and Liabilities, and Educational Qualifications of Candidates (Early 2000s onwards)

This set of reforms significantly enhanced transparency and empowered voters to make informed choices.

• Historical Background & Need: The increasing criminalization of politics and the opaque nature of candidates' financial backgrounds were major concerns. Voters often lacked crucial information about those seeking their mandate.
• Judicial Intervention:
  • Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) vs. Union of India (2002): This landmark Supreme Court judgment was a watershed moment. The Court directed the Election Commission to issue orders requiring candidates to furnish information on:
    • Criminal antecedents (whether accused of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case in which charges have been framed by a court of competent jurisdiction).
    • Assets and liabilities of the candidate, their spouse, and dependents.
    • Educational qualifications.
  • The government initially tried to dilute these directives through an ordinance and subsequent amendment to the RPA, 1951. However, the Supreme Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. Union of India (2003) struck down these attempts, upholding the voter's 'right to know' as an intrinsic part of the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
• Implementation & Impact:
  • The ECI, following the Supreme Court's directives, mandated the filing of affidavits by candidates disclosing the required information.
  • This information is now publicly available, allowing citizens, media, and civil society organizations to scrutinize candidates.
  • While it hasn't completely eradicated criminalization, it has certainly increased public awareness and put pressure on political parties regarding candidate selection.
• Relevant Legal Provisions:
  • Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (inserted via amendment) now statutorily requires candidates to furnish this information.
  • Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 were amended to include Form 26 (the affidavit format).

Conceptual Visual: The Journey of Disclosure Norms

graph TD
    A[Concern: Criminalization & Lack of Transparency] --> B{ADR vs. UoI, 2002};
    B --> C[SC Directive: Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Assets, Education];
    C --> D{Govt. Attempts to Dilute};
    D --> E[PUCL vs. UoI, 2003];
    E --> F[SC Upholds Voter's Right to Know (Art. 19(1)(a))];
    F --> G[ECI Mandates Affidavits (Form 26)];
    G --> H[Increased Transparency & Voter Awareness];

    subgraph "Key Actors"
        J[Supreme Court]
        K[Election Commission]
        L[Civil Society (ADR, PUCL)]
    end

Explanation of Visual: This flowchart illustrates the chronological progression and interplay of judicial pronouncements and ECI actions that led to the mandatory disclosure norms for candidates. It highlights the pivotal role of the Supreme Court and civil society organizations in ushering in this era of greater transparency.

2. Introduction of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT)

The adoption of EVMs and subsequently VVPATs represents a major technological leap in Indian elections, aimed at enhancing efficiency, reducing malpractices, and bolstering voter confidence.

• Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs):

  • Historical Background: First conceived in 1977 by the ECI, EVMs were developed in collaboration with Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) and Electronics Corporation of India Limited (ECIL). They were used on an experimental basis in the 1980s and 1990s.
  • Phased Introduction: After initial legal challenges regarding their statutory backing (resolved by amending the RPA, 1951 in 1989 to insert Section 61A), EVMs were gradually introduced. By the 2004 Lok Sabha elections, their use became universal across India.
  • Advantages:
    • Elimination of Invalid Votes: Unlike paper ballots, EVMs prevent invalid votes due to improper marking.
    • Speed and Efficiency: Faster counting of votes.
    • Cost-Effective: Reduction in printing of ballot papers and transportation/storage costs in the long run.
    • Reduced Booth Capturing: The "close" button on the EVM, once pressed after each vote, prevents continuous stuffing of ballot boxes.
  • Concerns & Debates: Despite their advantages, EVMs have faced scrutiny regarding their tamper-proof nature. These concerns, though repeatedly addressed by the ECI and upheld by courts, led to the demand for a verifiable paper trail.

• Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT):

  • Need and Demand: To enhance transparency and voter confidence, and to provide a means of verifying the vote cast through the EVM, the demand for VVPATs grew.
  • Judicial Impetus: In Subramanian Swamy vs. Election Commission of India (2013), the Supreme Court held that VVPAT is an "indispensable requirement of free and fair elections" and directed the ECI to introduce it in a phased manner.
  • Implementation: The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 were amended in 2013 to introduce VVPATs.
    • VVPATs provide a paper slip bearing the name and symbol of the candidate voted for, which is visible to the voter for a few seconds before being deposited into a sealed box.
    • This allows voters to verify that their vote has been recorded correctly.
  • Current Status: VVPATs are now used in all Assembly and Parliamentary elections alongside EVMs. A percentage of VVPAT slips are mandatorily matched with EVM counts to further ensure accuracy. The Supreme Court has, on multiple occasions, dismissed petitions seeking 100% VVPAT verification, reposing faith in the current system while emphasizing the ECI's role in ensuring electoral integrity.

Comparison Table: Ballot Paper vs. EVM vs. EVM with VVPAT

Explanation of Table: This table provides a comparative analysis of the three voting systems used in India, highlighting the evolution towards greater efficiency, transparency, and verifiability with the introduction of EVMs and VVPATs.

3. Introduction of NOTA (None of the Above) Option (2013)

The provision of a NOTA option on the ballot was a significant step towards empowering voters to express dissent.

• Background and Rationale: Voters who did not wish to vote for any of the contesting candidates had no way to formally register this choice. This often led to abstention or forced choices. The NOTA option provides a formal avenue for expressing negative preference.
• Judicial Directive: In People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to provide the NOTA option on EVMs and ballot papers. The Court reasoned that this would promote free and fair elections by allowing voters to express their dissatisfaction without violating their right to secrecy.
• Implementation: The ECI introduced the NOTA button on EVMs starting from assembly elections in late 2013.
• Impact and Significance:
  • Empowerment of Voters: Gives voters the right to reject all candidates.
  • Pressure on Political Parties: While NOTA votes are currently treated as 'invalid' and do not impact the election outcome (i.e., the candidate with the highest votes still wins even if NOTA gets more votes), a high percentage of NOTA votes can signal public discontent and pressure parties to field better candidates.
  • Ongoing Debate: There's an ongoing debate about whether NOTA should have more "teeth," such as mandating re-elections if NOTA receives the highest number of votes. However, the Supreme Court has so far refrained from issuing such directives, leaving it to the legislature.
• Constitutional Link: The right to vote, and by extension, the right to not vote for any candidate, is seen as an extension of the freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)).

4. Regulation of Opinion Polls and Exit Polls (Progressive Restrictions)

To ensure a level playing field and prevent undue influence on voters, restrictions on conducting and publishing opinion and exit polls have been progressively tightened.

• Need for Regulation: Unregulated opinion and exit polls, especially those published close to or during polling, were seen as potentially influencing voter behavior, sometimes based on unscientific methodologies or partisan biases.
• ECI Guidelines and Legal Amendments:
  • Initially, the ECI issued guidelines based on its powers under Article 324.
  • Section 126A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (inserted by an amendment in 2009) explicitly prohibits the conduct of exit polls and the dissemination of their results during the period starting from the commencement of polls in the first phase and ending after half an hour from the close of polls in the last phase of a multi-phase election.
  • Section 126(1)(b) of the RPA, 1951 prohibits displaying any election matter, including results of any opinion poll or any other poll survey, in any electronic media, during the period of 48 hours ending with the hour fixed for conclusion of poll in a particular polling area.
• Judicial Scrutiny: The Supreme Court has largely upheld these restrictions as reasonable limitations in the interest of ensuring free and fair elections.
• Impact: These regulations aim to prevent last-minute manipulation of voter sentiment and ensure that voters make their choices based on their own judgment rather than on predicted outcomes.

Constitutional Article Map: Regulation of Polls & Free Speech

graph TD
    A[Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of Speech & Expression] --> B{Reasonable Restrictions (Art. 19(2))};
    B --> C[Interest of Free & Fair Elections];
    C --> D[Regulation of Opinion/Exit Polls (Sec 126A, 126(1)(b) RPA 1951)];
    D --> E[Balancing Voter's Right to Information & Preventing Undue Influence];

    subgraph "Key Considerations"
        F[Timing of Publication]
        G[Methodological Rigour]
        H[Potential for Manipulation]
    end

Explanation of Visual: This map shows how the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) is balanced against the need for free and fair elections, leading to statutory regulations on opinion and exit polls. The restrictions are considered reasonable under Article 19(2).

5. Efforts Towards Decriminalization of Politics (Ongoing)

While the complete decriminalization of politics remains an elusive goal, several steps and judicial pronouncements post-1996 have aimed to curb the entry of individuals with criminal backgrounds into legislatures.

• Initial Provisions (RPA, 1951): Section 8 of the RPA, 1951 deals with the disqualification of candidates on conviction for certain offences.
• Landmark Judgments & Subsequent Developments:
  • Lily Thomas vs. Union of India (2013): The Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4) of the RPA, 1951, which allowed convicted MPs and MLAs to continue in office if they filed an appeal within three months of conviction. The Court held that conviction would lead to immediate disqualification.
  • Public Interest Foundation vs. Union of India (2018): While the Court refrained from disqualifying candidates merely on the framing of charges (as it falls within the legislative domain), it issued several directions to curb criminalization:
    • Candidates must declare pending criminal cases in bold letters in their affidavits.
    • Political parties must publish information about candidates with criminal antecedents on their websites and in widely circulated newspapers and electronic media.
    • Parties must provide reasons for selecting candidates with criminal records over those without.
  • Recent SC Directives (2020, 2021): The Supreme Court has further strengthened these disclosure norms, mandating that political parties publish criminal antecedents of candidates within 48 hours of selection or not less than two weeks before the first date for filing of nominations, whichever is earlier. Non-compliance can lead to contempt proceedings.
• Challenges and Way Forward:
  • Political parties often cite "winnability" as a reason for fielding candidates with criminal backgrounds.
  • Delay in trials means that many accused individuals contest and even win elections before their cases are decided.
  • There is a continuous demand for stronger laws, such as barring individuals against whom heinous charges have been framed from contesting elections, and for fast-tracking criminal cases against politicians.
  • The role of the ECI in ensuring compliance with disclosure norms is critical.

6. Reforms Related to Political Party Finances and Expenditure (Partial Success)

Regulating money power in elections has been a persistent challenge. Some reforms have aimed at bringing more transparency, though their effectiveness remains debatable.

• Expenditure Limits: The ECI sets limits on campaign expenditure by candidates. These limits are periodically revised. However, the actual expenditure often far exceeds these official caps.
• Transparency in Party Funding:
  • Section 29C of the RPA, 1951 requires political parties to declare donations above ₹20,000.
  • Electoral Trusts: Introduced as a mechanism to improve transparency in corporate funding to political parties.
  • Electoral Bonds (Introduced in 2017, Struck Down in 2024):
    • Objective: To cleanse the system of political funding by encouraging donations through banking channels and ensuring anonymity for donors.
    • Mechanism: Interest-free bearer instruments that could be purchased from specified banks and donated to registered political parties.
    • Controversy & Criticism: Raised concerns about transparency (as the identity of the donor was not publicly disclosed, though known to the bank/government), potential for quid pro quo, and unequal access for ruling parties.
    • Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024): In a landmark judgment on February 15, 2024, the Supreme Court struck down the Electoral Bonds scheme as unconstitutional, holding that it violated the voters' right to information under Article 19(1)(a). The Court also held that the unlimited corporate funding anoymised by the scheme infringed upon the principle of free and fair elections. The SBI was directed to disclose details of bonds purchased and encashed.
• Challenges:
  • The pervasive use of unaccounted cash ("black money") in elections.
  • Lack of adequate mechanisms to monitor actual expenditure.
  • The need for comprehensive state funding of elections is often debated but faces practical hurdles.

7. Strengthening the Election Commission of India

While the ECI's independence is constitutionally enshrined, ongoing discussions and some minor reforms have aimed to further bolster its functioning.

• Appointment and Security of Tenure: The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) has security of tenure similar to a Supreme Court judge. However, Election Commissioners (ECs) do not have the same constitutional protection regarding removal, though they can only be removed on the recommendation of the CEC. There have been demands for a collegium-based appointment process for all Election Commissioners to enhance impartiality.
  • Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India (2023): The Supreme Court ruled that the appointment of the CEC and ECs shall be made by the President on the advice of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha (or leader of the largest opposition party), and the Chief Justice of India, until Parliament enacts a law on this matter.
  • The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023: Subsequently, Parliament passed a new law which replaced the CJI in the selection committee with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. This move has been criticized by some as potentially diluting the independence of the selection process envisaged by the Supreme Court.
• Powers of the ECI: The ECI has extensively used its powers under Article 324 to issue Model Code of Conduct (MCC), regulate party broadcasts, and take disciplinary action. The MCC, though lacking statutory backing, has become a powerful tool for ensuring a level playing field.

Organogram: Election Commission of India - Structure & Powers

graph TD
    A[Constitution of India] --> B(Article 324: Superintendence, Direction & Control of Elections);
    B --> C{Election Commission of India};
    C --> D[Chief Election Commissioner (CEC)];
    C --> E[Election Commissioners (ECs)];
    D & E --> F[Secretariat & Field Machinery];

    subgraph "Key Functions/Powers"
        G[Preparation of Electoral Rolls]
        H[Conduct of Elections (Parliament, State Legislatures, President, VP)]
        I[Recognition of Political Parties & Allotment of Symbols]
        J[Enforcement of Model Code of Conduct]
        K[Advising President/Governor on Disqualification of Members]
        L[Quasi-Judicial Powers (Disputes related to recognition, symbols)]
    end

Explanation of Visual: This organogram depicts the constitutional basis of the Election Commission of India, its composition, and its broad spectrum of functions and powers critical for the democratic process.

Contemporary Developments and Evolving Interpretations

The landscape of electoral reforms is continuously evolving. Some contemporary issues and ongoing debates include:

• Remote Voting for Migrant Workers: The ECI has been exploring mechanisms to enable domestic migrant workers, who often miss out on voting due to their location, to exercise their franchise. This involves technological and logistical challenges.
• Combating Fake News and Misinformation: The proliferation of social media has brought new challenges in the form of fake news and targeted misinformation campaigns during elections. The ECI, along with social media platforms, is grappling with ways to address this.
• Inner-Party Democracy: While not directly an electoral reform concerning the conduct of polls, the lack of robust inner-party democracy in many political parties has implications for candidate selection and overall democratic health.
• Debate on 'One Nation, One Election': The idea of holding simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies is periodically discussed, with proponents citing cost savings and reduced policy paralysis, while opponents raise concerns about federalism and voter confusion.
• Impact of Digital Technologies: Beyond EVMs, the use of technology in voter registration, campaign management, and election monitoring continues to evolve, presenting both opportunities and challenges.
• Strengthening the Adjudication of Election Petitions: Delays in the disposal of election petitions undermine the timely redressal of electoral grievances.

Conclusion: The Unending Pursuit of Electoral Integrity

The electoral reforms undertaken in India since 1996 reflect a dynamic and responsive democracy striving for greater fairness, transparency, and inclusivity. From empowering voters with information about candidates to leveraging technology for efficient and verifiable voting, and from attempting to curb criminalization to regulating party finances, these reforms have significantly contributed to strengthening the electoral fabric of the nation.

However, the journey is far from over. Challenges like the persistent influence of money and muscle power, the need for faster adjudication of electoral disputes, ensuring true representativeness, and adapting to the complexities of the digital age require continuous vigilance, innovation, and political will. The proactive role of the Election Commission, the judiciary's commitment to upholding constitutional principles, and the engagement of civil society remain crucial in this ongoing quest for electoral integrity.

As India continues its democratic evolution, the lessons learned from past reforms and the anticipation of future challenges will shape the next phase of its electoral journey, ensuring that the voice of every citizen is heard and counted in a manner that is truly free, fair, and meaningful.

Interactive Q&A / Practice Exercises

Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. Which Supreme Court judgment was instrumental in mandating the disclosure of criminal antecedents, assets, and educational qualifications by candidates?

   • (a) Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala
   • (b) Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) vs. Union of India (2002)
   • (c) Lily Thomas vs. Union of India (2013)
   • (d) S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India

   Answer: (b) Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) vs. Union of India (2002) Explanation: The ADR case (2002) and the subsequent PUCL case (2003) established the voter's 'right to know' and led to the ECI mandating these disclosures.

2. Section 61A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, deals with:

   • (a) Disqualification on conviction for certain offences.
   • (b) Restrictions on exit polls.
   • (c) The use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in elections.
   • (d) Registration of political parties.

   Answer: (c) The use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in elections. Explanation: Section 61A was inserted in the RPA, 1951, to provide statutory backing for the use of EVMs.

3. The NOTA (None of the Above) option was introduced following a directive by the Supreme Court in which case?

   • (a) Public Interest Foundation vs. Union of India (2018)
   • (b) Subramanian Swamy vs. Election Commission of India (2013)
   • (c) People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. Union of India (2013)
   • (d) Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India (2023)

   Answer: (c) People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. Union of India (2013) Explanation: The Supreme Court in the PUCL (NOTA) case directed the ECI to provide the NOTA option, recognizing it as part of the voter's freedom of expression.

4. The Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4) of the RPA, 1951, which allowed convicted legislators to continue in office if they appealed within three months, in which landmark case?

   • (a) ADR vs. Union of India (2002)
   • (b) Lily Thomas vs. Union of India (2013)
   • (c) PUCL vs. Union of India (2003)
   • (d) Common Cause vs. Union of India (Electoral Bonds case 2024)

   Answer: (b) Lily Thomas vs. Union of India (2013) Explanation: The Lily Thomas judgment ended the protection enjoyed by convicted MPs/MLAs under Section 8(4) of the RPA, 1951, leading to their immediate disqualification upon conviction.

5. The Supreme Court recently struck down the Electoral Bonds scheme as unconstitutional primarily because it violated:

   • (a) The right to equality (Article 14)
   • (b) The right to freedom of speech and expression, specifically the voter's right to information (Article 19(1)(a))
   • (c) The right to life and personal liberty (Article 21)
   • (d) The powers of the Election Commission of India (Article 324)

   Answer: (b) The right to freedom of speech and expression, specifically the voter's right to information (Article 19(1)(a)) Explanation: The Supreme Court held that the anonymity of donors under the Electoral Bonds scheme was not justified and violated the voters' right to be informed about political funding, which is crucial for free and fair elections.

Scenario-Based Question

Scenario: A political party "X" announces its candidates for an upcoming State Assembly election. It is discovered that several of their candidates have serious criminal cases pending against them, where charges have been framed. Civil society organizations raise concerns.

Question: Based on the electoral reforms and Supreme Court directives post-1996 (particularly after the Public Interest Foundation vs. Union of India, 2018 case and subsequent orders), what are the obligations of Political Party "X" and its candidates in this situation? What is the ECI expected to monitor?

Answer Explanation:

• Obligations of Candidates: Each candidate with pending criminal cases (where charges have been framed for offences punishable with imprisonment of 2 years or more) must declare these details in bold letters in their affidavit (Form 26) filed with the nomination papers. They must also publish this information in local newspapers and TV channels on at least three occasions after filing their nomination.
• Obligations of Political Party "X":
  • The party must publish information regarding the criminal antecedents of its selected candidates on its official website.
  • It must also publish this information in widely circulated newspapers and popular TV channels in the concerned constituencies.
  • Crucially, Political Party "X" must provide cogent reasons for selecting candidates with criminal records, explaining why candidates with clean backgrounds could not have been chosen. These reasons should be based on merit and qualifications, not just "winnability."
  • This information should be published within 48 hours of the selection of the candidate or not less than two weeks before the first date for filing of nominations, whichever is earlier.
• ECI's Role in Monitoring:
  • The ECI is responsible for ensuring that candidates and political parties comply with these disclosure requirements.
  • It can issue notices for non-compliance.
  • The Supreme Court has also directed the ECI to bring instances of non-compliance to its notice, and contempt proceedings can be initiated against party leadership for repeated violations.
  • The ECI also makes all candidate affidavits publicly available on its website for voter scrutiny.

This scenario highlights the evolving framework aimed at increasing transparency and accountability regarding candidates with criminal backgrounds, putting the onus on political parties to justify such selections.

Match the Following

Answers:

1. C
2. D
3. A
4. B
5. E

Explanation: This exercise helps correlate key reforms and regulatory measures with their corresponding landmark judgments or statutory provisions.

Diagram-Based Question

Analyze the "Conceptual Visual: The Journey of Disclosure Norms" presented earlier in the blog.

Question: Identify the two primary institutional actors whose interaction was crucial in establishing the mandatory disclosure norms for candidates. Briefly explain their respective roles in this process.

Answer Explanation:

• Institutional Actor 1: The Supreme Court of India.
  • Role: The Supreme Court played a pivotal and proactive role through its landmark judgments in ADR vs. Union of India (2002) and PUCL vs. Union of India (2003). It interpreted Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution (freedom of speech and expression) to include the voter's 'right to know' critical information about candidates. It issued directives to the Election Commission to implement these disclosure requirements, overriding governmental attempts to dilute them.
• Institutional Actor 2: The Election Commission of India (ECI).
  • Role: Following the Supreme Court's directives, the ECI acted as the implementing agency. It amended the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, to introduce Form 26 (the affidavit for disclosure). It made it mandatory for candidates to file these affidavits and ensured their public dissemination. The ECI utilized its powers under Article 324 to enforce these new transparency measures.

Recommended Books

You can explore these highly recommended resources for a deeper understanding.

• Indian Polity (English) by M Laxmikanth for UPSC CSE 2025 | 7th edition (latest) | Civil Services Exam - Prelims, Mains and Interview | State PSCs exams/ PCS exams - by M Laxmikanth
• Oswaal NCERT One For All Book for UPSC & State PSCs | Indian Polity Classes 6-12 - by Oswaal Editorial Board
• Bharat Ki Rajvyavastha (भारत की राजव्यवस्था) - M Laxmikanth for UPSC CSE