Author: Luxen I, The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai
To the point
As India gears up for the 2024/2025 general elections, the judiciary plays a vital role in safeguarding electoral integrity. Its function goes beyond simple dispute resolution; it ensures that the democratic process is both free and fair while adhering to constitutional principles. Historically, the judiciary has stepped in to promote transparency in political financing, require candidates to disclose relevant information, and fight against the criminalization of politics. Recent rulings, such as the nullification of the Electoral Bond Scheme In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024), highlight the Court’s dedication to upholding the voter’s right to information. At the same time, the judiciary has tackled issues related to electoral freebies and the disqualification of convicted politicians. Through its review powers, it holds the Election Commission and political figures responsible, thus reinforcing democratic values. As electoral challenges continue to evolve due to technology and misinformation, the judiciary’s proactive and principled approach will be crucial in maintaining the integrity of India’s electoral democracy.
Abstract
As India nears the 2024/2025 general elections, the judiciary’s function in protecting the integrity of the electoral process is crucial. With significant rulings and careful supervision, courts have tackled matters from campaign financing to the qualifications of candidates, ensuring that the democratic process stays transparent and equitable. This article explores the judiciary’s actions, emphasizing important cases and legal concepts that highlight its dedication to maintaining the sanctity of elections.
Use of Legal Jargon
The judiciary plays a crucial role in protecting the integrity of elections through the use of fundamental constitutional and electoral doctrines. The essential principle in this context is the significance of conducting free and fair elections, viewed as a fundamental component of the Constitution as established in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case. Courts often employ judicial review to examine the constitutional validity of laws such as the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and initiatives like electoral bonds, evaluating them for any violation of fundamental rights, particularly Article 19(1)(a)—the right to free speech and expression, which includes the right to obtain information. The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is implemented during elections, and any breaches may be deemed as misconduct in public office or misuse of authority. By utilizing Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 32 and Article 226, the judiciary implements its extensive powers to uphold electoral integrity, thereby ensuring substantive due process and accountability within the democratic framework.
The Proof
The judiciary’s dedication to maintaining the integrity of elections is prominently showcased through a series of significant rulings that have transformed India’s electoral framework. Notably, In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court invalidated the Electoral Bond Scheme, determining that undisclosed contributions to political parties infringe upon voters’ right to information as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This ruling emphasized the Court’s commitment to transparency in political funding, making it essential for voters to understand the origins of political influence.
In Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013), the Court ruled that lawmakers who are convicted must be disqualified from their positions without delay, overturning Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act. This pivotal decision ensured that individuals with serious criminal records cannot hold public office, thereby mitigating the criminalization of politics.
Moreover, in S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013), the Court voiced concerns regarding the proliferation of electoral handouts, recognizing their detrimental impact on free and fair elections. It mandated the Election Commission to develop guidelines to restrict such practices. These decisions collectively illustrate the judiciary’s robust commitment to upholding electoral integrity through judicial oversight, constitutional interpretation, and institutional checks.
Case Laws
The judiciary in India has been crucial in upholding electoral integrity through significant legal rulings that have established lasting legal standards.
In the case of Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court ruled the Electoral Bond Scheme unconstitutional, asserting that it violated citizens’ fundamental right to information as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court determined that the lack of transparency in political donations obstructed electoral clarity and fostered an uneven playing field among political parties, primarily favoring the party in power. This decision reinforced the principle that voters deserve to be aware of political financing, which is crucial for active participation in a democracy.
In the case of Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013), the Court determined that Members of Parliament (MPs), Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs), and Members of Legislative Councils (MLCs) found guilty of crimes warranting a sentence of two years or more would be disqualified from holding office immediately. It nullified Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which previously permitted convicted lawmakers to remain in office until they had exhausted appeals. This decision emphasized the importance of maintaining integrity in public service.
In S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013), the Supreme Court voiced strong concerns regarding the distribution of freebies by political parties, indicating that this practice could compromise the electoral process. While not outright declaring such actions illegal, it instructed the Election Commission to develop regulations for these practices. This marked a pivotal move towards ensuring equitable competition in elections.
The case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2003) resulted in the implementation of the “None of the Above” (NOTA) option on electronic voting machines (EVMs), reinforcing the right to abstain and enhancing voter independence within a democratic framework.
Conclusion
The judiciary is a fundamental pillar of electoral democracy in India, actively preserving constitutional principles and ensuring fair elections. With influential judgments and interpretations of the constitution, it mitigates electoral misconduct, promotes transparency, and enhances accountability in democracy. As India approaches the elections in 2024/2025, the judiciary’s ongoing involvement is crucial for maintaining the integrity and trustworthiness of the electoral process.
FAQS
What function does the judiciary serve in maintaining electoral integrity?
The judiciary plays a crucial role in ensuring elections are held fairly by interpreting laws, resolving disputes, and tackling malpractices that jeopardize democratic values.
How has the judiciary dealt with issues related to political funding?
Through rulings such as Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024), the judiciary has enforced the need for transparency in political contributions, ensuring that voters are aware of the sources of funding.
What actions has the judiciary taken against legislators who have been convicted?
In Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court determined that legislators convicted of serious offenses should be disqualified immediately, strengthening accountability for public officials.
How does the judiciary approach the issue of electoral freebies?
The judiciary has acknowledged the potential effects of electoral freebies on fair competition and has prompted regulatory authorities to create guidelines to tackle this concern.
What importance does the NOTA option hold?
The implementation of the “None of the Above” (NOTA) option grants voters the ability to decline all candidates if they deem none appropriate, thereby improving voter choice and engagement.
Recommended Readings
Singhal’s Law of Elections in India: A comprehensive guide detailing the legal framework governing elections in India.
LexisNexis Handbook on Election Law by P. Rathna Swamy: An authoritative reference covering various aspects of election law.
Justice Versus Judiciary: A critical analysis of the judiciary’s role in upholding democratic values.
Electoral Practice and the Election Commission of India: An in-depth look at the functioning of the Election Commission and its impact on electoral processes.
Electoral Integrity and Democracy In India’s Northeast: A regional perspective on electoral challenges and democratic practices.
