Author: Himanshu Bhat

India takes great pride in being the world’s largest democracy. We vote, we debate, and we often complain about the government — and all of this is part of what makes us democratic. But a question that keeps coming up, especially in recent times, is whether our elected leaders — MPs and MLAs — should at least have a minimum level of education. This has been a
topic of political as well as public debate for quite some time.

At the same time, many of us are concerned about the way elections are held, the kind of candidates who contest, and whether the system is transparent enough. Electoral reforms have been suggested for decades, but the changes have mostly been small and scattered. This article is based on the work of two scholars — Anjan Kumar Bhanja and Sanjay Kumar — and it tries to explain both the importance of educational qualifications for political representatives and the urgent need for proper electoral reforms in India.

Why Educational Qualifications for Politicians Matter

In India It is a little surprising, but there is absolutely no requirement that a person complete school or college in order to be eligible to serve as a state MLA or even a member of parliament. According to the Representation of the People Act of 1951, for example, they only look at your age, citizenship in India, and whether you have any criminal charges against you; they don’t look at your educational background at all. In other words, someone who has never attended school can still become a member of Parliament and participate in important decisions, such as approving international agreements, passing budgets, or even discussing space and science initiatives.

Many people feel that this does not make sense. If you need to be a graduate to apply for a clerical post in a government office, then should not the same apply to someone who is making laws for the whole country? It’s not about making education a barrier but making sure that the people representing us can understand the complex matters they have to deal with.

In fact, a study by Anjan Kumar Bhanja involving MLAs from Odisha’s 10th and 11th assemblies found that most of them agreed that there should be a minimum education level. Around 82.5% in the 10th Assembly and 90.5% in the 11th supported the idea. They suggested either matriculation (Class 10) or graduation as the ideal cutoff.

However, there is also another side. Some politicians and experts think that in a country where many people still do not have access to education, setting a minimum qualification could be unfair by virtue of which the experienced leaders who understand the problems of the people but never had the chance to study. That is a valid concern, and reforms need to take both aspects into account.

What Can Be Done?

Instead of making education mandatory all at once, Bhanja suggests a middle path. He proposes that all elected representatives should undergo public service training. This training can include things like the Indian Constitution, how Parliament works, ethics, law-making procedures, and their roles as representatives. This is a fair and practical approach. It does not discriminate based on someone’s background, but it still helps them prepare better for the role they’ve been elected to. Over the years, there has already been an increase in the number of graduates in Parliament, which is a good sign. But proper training can fill the remaining gap.

Now Coming to Electoral Reforms

Moving from qualifications to how elections are conducted, Sanjay Kumar talks about how the Indian electoral process needs serious cleaning up. From the criminalization of politics to confusing and error-ridden voter rolls, there are multiple issues.
Various committees have already looked into this — the Goswami Committee in 1990, Indrajit Gupta Committee in 1998, and the Law Commission in 1999 — and even the Election Commission has given recommendations. But most of these suggestions remain either unimplemented or only half-heartedly applied.

The 2002 Supreme Court Judgment

One important milestone came in 2002, when the Supreme Court gave a ruling in Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms. The Court said that candidates contesting elections must disclose their criminal records, financial assets, liabilities, and even their educational background. This was a big step in the right direction.

The Election Commission followed it up with a proper notification, and now candidates have to provide these details in their nomination papers. This helps voters make informed choices. However, 21 political parties openly opposed this move, saying it was an overreach. That alone shows how much resistance there is to transparency in our political system.

A Flawed Bill and Missed Opportunity

Later, a draft bill was introduced to limit this new transparency. It said that a candidate would only be disqualified if convicted for two serious crimes. This left out many other crimes like hate speech, dowry violence, or attacks on Dalits — which are very serious but were ignored. Even the requirement to disclose assets was watered down. Critics pointed out that this was a
way of weakening the Supreme Court’s effort and letting tainted candidates off the hook. This shows that reforms can’t succeed unless there is political will to make them happen. It’s not just about passing laws — it’s about enforcing them properly.

Education Disclosure: Fair or Biased?

As part of the reforms, the EC also asked candidates to declare their educational qualifications. On paper, this seems good. But Sanjay Kumar warns that voters may start favouring only highly educated candidates and ignore others, even if they are honest and hardworking. In a country where a large part of the population is still catching up on education, this can be unfair. So while disclosing education levels is good for transparency, we also need awareness campaigns to make sure people don’t treat education as the only criteria to judge a candidate.

Voter Rolls: The Basic but Broken Part

Perhaps the most ignored part of our elections is the voter list. There are thousands of cases where names of dead people are still on the list, and genuine voters are missing. Without fixing this, all other reforms are just surface-level changes. Updating voter rolls should be the first priority if we want fair and inclusive elections.

CONCLUSION

There’s no denying that both education and solid election reforms play a big role in how well a democracy like ours functions. We can’t expect great governance from leaders who haven’t had any kind of formal training or exposure to how complex policy and lawmaking actually works. On the other hand, even the best leaders can’t do much if the system they come through is flawed or full of gaps.

That being said, it’s important not to go overboard and make education some kind of gatekeeping tool. India is still catching up in terms of access to education, and a lot of grassroots leaders may not have degrees but still understand people’s problems far better than someone with fancy qualifications. So instead of setting strict academic cut-offs, it probably makes more sense to give our elected leaders proper training once they’re in office—teach them the basics of the Constitution, governance, budgets, and so on.

When it comes to election reforms, things like cleaning up the voter rolls, making candidate info public, and cracking down on criminal backgrounds should be non-negotiable.