Author: Kapil Kumar Pandey, CMP Degree College, Prayagraj 

“The whole purpose of vesting the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the Election Commission is to ensure that elections are conducted in a free and fair manner.”

      — Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

INTRODUCTION

The legitimacy of a democracy rests upon the conduct of elections that must be both free and fair. Elections in India are a hot potato for all its citizens. India is the world’s largest democracy and has developed elaborate constitutional and institutional systems to secure electoral integrity legitimacy. The Election Commission of India (ECI) lies at the heart of this framework. It’s a body anticipated by the framers of the Constitution as the guardian of democratic values.¹ The Commission is not merely an administrative agency but several powers are vested in it that enable the commission to supervise, direct, and control the entire electoral process.

The significance of the ECI has been continuously guaranteed by the Supreme Court, which has emphasised that the responsibility of the commission is to maintain “the purity of the election process” and to ensure that elections reflect the free will of the people.² The journey of the ECI is full of challenges whether it was first election in 1951-52 with 17.3 crore registered voters or now in 2024, the largest electorate in the world with 96.88 crores.³ Concerns about institutional independence, political interference, money power, criminalisation of politics, and digital disinformation continue to test its capacity to uphold constitutional ideals.

CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE OF THE ELECTION COMMISSION

Establishment and Composition:

The ECI is a constitutional body created under Article 324 of the Constitution of India to superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections.⁴ Initially, the Commission consisted of a single Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). The Election Commission (Amendment) Act 1989 introduced a multi member body, enabling the appointment of additional Election Commissioners by the President. However, by the amendment act of 1993 the commission was established as a multi member body. 

The independence of the Commission is protected by provisions regarding the security of tenure of the CEC and whose removal requires a process and grounds similar to that of a Supreme Court judge.⁵ Election Commissioners can be removed on the recommendation of the CEC and they do not enjoy identical safeguards as to the CEC.

The Scope of Election Commission of India:

Article 324 confers a wide jurisdiction upon the ECI extending to all elections of Parliament, Legislature of every state and offices of the President and Vice-President.⁶ The authority is both supervisory and determinative, empowering the ECI to take decisions in areas where the law is silent. This wide ambit is essential for ensuring the smooth functioning of electoral democracy.

ECI and State Election Commissions:

The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments stands for provisions which introduced State Election Commissions (SECs) under Articles 243 K and 243 ZA to conduct local body elections.⁷ These bodies operate independently at the state level but the comprehensive constitutional philosophy of electoral integrity continues to be guided by the precedent set by the ECI.

POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE ELECTION COMMISSION

It’s very important for any commotion to have some powers and functions to discharge its duties and to achieve its ultimate objective. Therefore, the constitution of India and various other legislations guarantees the power and functions to the commission some of those are discussed in following heads:

1. It’s the important function of the commission to maintain and revise the electoral rolls. The Commission is entrusted with the responsibility under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, to ensure that voter lists are accurate and inclusive. This is an extremely important task in a country with such a diverse population and frequent migration.

2. Conducting free and fair elections requires an extraordinary level of systems management. The ECI oversees every operational detail, from the deployment of security forces to the regulation of polling stations and the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). The ECI also monitors campaign financing, political advertisements and the use of government machinery by ruling parties during elections.

3. The Commission’s most prominent intervention has been the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, a set of ethical guidelines governing political parties and candidates during elections. Although it is not legally binding, the judiciary has repeatedly upheld the MCC as an important mechanism for ensuring impartiality.⁸   

4. The Commission imposes limits on election expenditure to prevent the disproportionate influence of money power. In this, candidates are expected to maintain a detailed account of expenditure and failure to do so can lead to disqualification of the candidate.⁹ The principles of these regulations have been questioned with regard to opaque electoral bands and parallel campaigns.

5. The ECI registers political parties under Section 29A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and ensures compliance with democratic norms in their functioning. Its role has expanded considerably in recent decades, to also include investigations into party symbols, mergers and internal disputes.

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF ROLE OF ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA 

The Apex Court has played an important role in determining the scope of the Commission’s powers. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain (1975), the Court has upheld the doctrine of basic structure and stated that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the Constitution, therefore parliament cannot amend it .¹⁰ 

In Mohinder Singh Gill v Chief Election Commissioner (1978), The Court unfold the scope of Article 324 and held that The Election Commission has exclusive powers of superintendence, direction, and control over election conduct, which are not limited to the Representation of the People Act but it is subjected to the judicial review.¹¹

Further, in Union of India v Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) and People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India (2003), The Court held that the right to information about candidates, like criminal background, is part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).¹² 

Recently, in Anoop Baranwal v Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court stressed on the need for institutional independence of the Election Commission. Further the Court directed that the creation of a three-member committee for the appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and other commissioners which consist of The Prime Minister, The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha (or the leader of the largest opposition party if no official leader exists), and The Chief Justice of India, until the Parliament passes a law on this matter.¹³ 

PRACTICAL CHALLENGES IN ENSURING FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS

Criminalisation of Politics:

The increasing number of legislators facing criminal charges poses a grave challenge to electoral integrity. Despite judicial directions mandating disclosure of criminal antecedents, voters are often oscillated by money and muscle power.¹⁴ The ECI lacks authority to debar candidates with pending criminal cases, unless they are convicted

Partisan Appointments:

There is no transparent process for the selection of Election Commissioners that can keep political targeting out of the process. The Supreme Court’s intervention in Anoop Baranwal is illustrative of the fact that more safeguards are required to isolate ECI from the executive.

Technology and Disinformation:

Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) and Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails (VVPAT) have increased the credibility, but allegations of tampering and digital disinformation campaigns have shaken the trust of the public.¹⁵ The ECI’s regulatory capability in the digital space remains largely undeveloped in addressing fake news.

Lack in Enforcement of MCC

While the Model Code of Conduct has served as a moral fetter, its enforcement has sometimes been criticised for being selective or delayed. The lack of statutory enforcement however diminishes its prophylactic effect in situations where powerful incumbents are concerned. 

REFORM PROPOSALS AND COMPARATIVE INSIGHTS

Strengthening Institutional Independence:

Reform ideas to enhance the ECI’s independence have circulated for quite some time. As a similar example, the 255th Report of the Law Commission (2015) proposed the establishment of a collegium for the appointment at the Commission with the premise that it would enhance transparency and accountability.¹⁶

Regulating Political Finance:

We need massive campaign finance reform. Among proposed reforms are limits to corporate giving, increasing public financing of campaigns and full disclosure of donations. Lessons could be learned from democracies such as Canada and Germany, where private funding is highly regulated.

Combating Criminalisation:

However, the question that lingers is whether someone with grave criminal charges ought to be allowed to contest an election at all, unless exonerated. Admittedly, issues of presumption of innocence still arise, but the broader democratic interest in ensuring that criminal capture of politics is prevented is a powerful justification for the stricter stance.

Digital Regulation:

The rise of social media has created new electoral vulnerabilities. It is possible to provide the ECI with powers to prevent online campaigning, misinformation and data misuse through statutory provisions, as is implemented in other countries, such as the EU transparency rules regarding political advertising.

CONCLUSION

The Election Commission of India (ECI) plays a central role in safeguarding the democratic values of the country by conducting free and fair elections. The commission has wide constitutional powers and has gained judicial support to uphold electoral integrity. It still faces major challenges such as criminalisation of politics, lack of transparency in appointments, issues with technology and digital disinformation, and selective enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct. Proposed reforms like a more independent appointment process, stricter campaign finance rules, measures to curb criminal influence, and digital regulations can further strengthen it. Therefore, continuous improvement and vigilance are needed to ensure that elections truly reflect the will of the citizens and uphold democratic principles.

REFERENCES

1. Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. IX, 965 (16 June 1949) (remarks of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar on art. 324).

2. Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405.

3. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, Press Information Bureau – (Aug. 28, 2025, 10:25 PM),  https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2005189.

4.  India Const. art. 324.

5. India Const. art. 324, cl. 5.

6. India Const. art 324, cl. 1.

7. India Const. arts 243K and 243ZA.

8. S Subramaniam Balaji v. Government of Tamil Nadu, (2013) 9 SCC 659.

9. Representation of the People Act, 1951, §10A, No.43, Act of Parliament, 1951 (India).

10. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299.

11. Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405.

12. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294; People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399.

13. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, (2023) 6 SCC 1.

14. Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 224.

15. ADR v. Election Commission of India, (2019) 3 SCC 355.

16. Law Commission of India, Report No. 255, Electoral Reforms (2015).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

India Const.  1950.

Representation of the People Act, 1950, No.43, Act of Parliament, 1950 (India).

Representation of the People Act, 1951, No.43, Act of Parliament, 1951 (India).

Election Commission (Amendment) Act 1988, No.1,Act of Parliament, 1989 (India).

Cases

Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, (2023) 6 SCC 1.

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299.

Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405.

People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399.

Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 224.

Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294.

ADR v. Election Commission of India, (2019) 3 SCC 355.

Secondary Sources

J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India (57th ed., Central Law Agency 2020).

D.D BASU, Introduction to the Constitution of India (24th ed., LexisNexis 2019).

Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. IX, 965 (16 June 1949) 

Election Commission of India, Comments on the Electoral Bonds Scheme (2017).

Law Commission of India, Report No. 255, Electoral Reforms (2015).