Electoral Reforms in India: Committees Commissions, Judgments, ECI Proposals & 2026 Updates
Electoral reform in India is a seventy-year conversation carried on by committees, courts and the Election Commission — and largely stalled in Parliament. This note walks through every major commission from Tarkunde (1974) to the Kovind Committee (2024), explains the reforms in plain language with examples, and updates the picture to July 2026 with the failed delimitation bills, the SIR verdict and the One Nation One Election JPC.
1. Introduction — What Are Electoral Reforms?
Electoral reforms refer to changes made to the rules, processes, institutions, and mechanisms that govern elections — with the aim of making them more free, fair, transparent, and representative. In India, this is an ongoing, evolving process shaped by judicial interventions, legislative amendments, ECI initiatives, and committee recommendations.
Prelims Anchor Facts
- Constitutional basis: Article 324 — superintendence, direction, control of elections vested in the ECI
- Key legislation: Representation of the People Act, 1950 & 1951
- First General Elections: 1951–52 | First CEC: Sukumar Sen
- Lowering of voting age: 61st Constitutional Amendment, 1988 — 21 → 18 years
- EVMs first used nationally: 2004 General Elections (used in phases from 1998)
Link with Article 324 & the Basic Structure
The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) established that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the Constitution. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), the Court reaffirmed that democracy and free elections cannot be abrogated even by constitutional amendment. Electoral reforms, therefore, are not merely legislative choices — they are constitutional imperatives.
Electoral reforms must be understood as part of constitutional morality — the obligation not merely to follow the letter but the spirit of democratic governance. As Dr. Ambedkar warned, constitutional machinery can be subverted when those in power forget their obligations. Reforms are the corrective mechanism.
2. Why Electoral Reforms Are Necessary
Six structural problems drive the entire reform agenda. Memorise them as a set — they double as the body paragraphs of almost any Mains answer on this topic.
Use these in your answers: electoral integrity · level playing field · institutional autonomy · representative democracy · criminalisation of politics · political accountability.
3. Evolution of Electoral Reforms (Chronological)
A. Pre-1996 Reforms
| Year | Reform | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| 1951 | Representation of the People Act, 1951 | Foundation statute — governs conduct of elections to Parliament and State Legislatures. Defines electoral offences, corrupt practices, and disqualifications |
| 1961 | Election Symbols Order | ECI empowered to recognise parties, allocate symbols; regulated split and merger of parties |
| 1966 | Joint Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Reforms | First systematic attempt to identify electoral problems; laid the groundwork for future committees |
| 1975 | Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain | SC struck down the 39th Amendment which barred judicial review of the PM's election. Reaffirmed free elections as basic structure |
| 1988 | 61st Constitutional Amendment — voting age 21 → 18 | Added roughly 3.5 crore new voters. Recognised youth participation as essential to democratic representation |
| 1989 | EVMs introduced (pilot) | Used in limited constituencies in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and NCT Delhi. Replaced paper ballots gradually |
| 1989 | Dinesh Goswami Committee constituted | Mandated to suggest comprehensive electoral reforms. Report submitted 1990 |
| 1989 | Anti-Defection Law strengthened (52nd + 91st Amendment) | 52nd Amendment (1985) introduced Schedule X; 91st Amendment (2003) required a minimum two-thirds merger for merger protection |
| 1993 | Multi-member ECI (three-member body) | President expanded the ECI to CEC + 2 ECs. Strengthened collegiate decision-making; reduced single-person dominance |
| 1994 | Booth capturing provisions | Section 58A added to the RP Act — ECI can countermand elections where booth capturing is proved; fresh polls ordered |
B. Post-1996 Reforms
| Year | Reform | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| 1996 | Model Code of Conduct — strict enforcement era | Under CEC T.N. Seshan, the MCC became a serious enforcement tool; ruling parties could no longer use government machinery for campaigning with impunity |
| 2002 | ADR case — criminal disclosure mandated | SC in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India directed candidates to disclose criminal antecedents, assets and educational qualifications via affidavit with the nomination. Landmark transparency reform |
| 2003 | RP (Amendment) Act 2002–03 — corporate funding | Section 29B amended to allow companies to donate to political parties; exemption from the IT Act for certain donations. Cash donation limit to parties set at ₹20,000, later reduced to ₹2,000 |
| 2003 | Free electoral rolls | EPIC process improved; rolls made freely accessible online — an important step in voter empowerment |
| 2004 | EVMs used nationally | 100% switchover to EVMs in all constituencies. Reduced booth capturing, invalid votes and counting time drastically |
C. Post-2010 Reforms
| Year | Reform | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| 2010 | Exit poll restrictions | RP Act amended — exit polls prohibited from the time voting begins until the last phase closes. Prevents voter influence across multi-phase elections |
| 2013 | Lily Thomas case — immediate disqualification | SC struck down Section 8(4) of the RP Act which allowed convicted MPs and MLAs to continue in office pending appeal. Now conviction means immediate disqualification, regardless of appeal |
| 2013 | NOTA introduced — PUCL case | SC directed the ECI to provide a "None of the Above" option on EVMs. Protects the voter's right to reject all candidates. NOTA has no electoral consequence currently — it is only statistical |
| 2017 | Cash donation limit reduced ₹20,000 → ₹2,000 | Finance Act 2017. Anonymous cash donations above ₹2,000 banned. Aim: reduce cash-based political funding. Critics: the threshold still allows bulk small-cash laundering |
| 2018 | Electoral Bonds Scheme introduced | Buyers could purchase bonds from SBI and donate anonymously to parties. Government claimed it would clean up political funding. Widely criticised for enabling anonymous quid-pro-quo donations. Struck down by SC in February 2024 |
| 2019 | VVPATs deployed nationally | Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail introduced with EVMs — the voter can verify their vote. Enhanced public trust in electronic voting |
| 2021 | NRI voting — proxy voting pilot | RP (Amendment) Act 2010 allowed overseas voters to vote in person, but participation was low. Demand for postal or proxy voting for NRIs continues |
| 2023 | SC: Anoop Baranwal — ECI appointment reform | SC directed a 3-member selection committee (PM + LoP + CJI) for ECI appointments. Parliament responded with the 2023 Act — CJI excluded. Debated |
| 2024 | Electoral bonds struck down (Feb 2024) | SC Constitution Bench held electoral bonds unconstitutional — violating voters' right to information under Article 19(1)(a). SBI directed to submit data to the ECI for public disclosure |
61st Amendment → voting age 21→18 (1988) · Goswami Committee → maximum 2 constituencies per candidate · ADR case (2002) → criminal and asset disclosure mandatory · Lily Thomas (2013) → instant disqualification on conviction · NOTA → 2013, PUCL case · Electoral bonds → introduced 2018, struck down Feb 2024 · Cash limit per donor → ₹2,000 since 2017.
4. Commissions & Committees on Electoral Reform — The Full Story
This is the backbone of the topic. India has never lacked ideas about how to fix its elections; it has lacked the political will to legislate them. Below is every major body, what it was asked to do, and what came of it.
1. Tarkunde Committee (1974)
- Set up by Jayaprakash Narayan under the banner of Citizens for Democracy, chaired by Justice V.M. Tarkunde — a citizens' initiative rather than a government body, which is itself an examinable point
- Recommended lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 — implemented fourteen years later by the 61st Amendment
- Proposed that the ECI be a three-member body appointed by the President on the advice of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India — the same formula the Supreme Court would adopt in Anoop Baranwal nearly fifty years later
- Recommended proportional representation, state funding of elections, and an independent ECI
2. Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990)
The Committee on Electoral Reforms was constituted in 1989 under then Law Minister Dinesh Goswami, with representation from across the political spectrum, and submitted its report in May 1990. It remains the most influential single report on the subject.
- Recommended government funding of elections through the supply of certain items to candidates
- Limit on the number of constituencies a candidate can contest: maximum 2 — implemented by the 1996 amendment to Section 33(7)
- Recommended disqualification for electoral malpractice
- Suggested classification of corrupt practices and gradation of punishment
- Recommended that the ECI be given power to register and de-register parties
- Proposed independent audit of party finances
- Opposed state funding unless accompanied by strict controls
- Also backed the use of EVMs and consultation with the CJI and the Leader of the Opposition in ECI appointments
Of the Goswami Committee's package, essentially one recommendation became law: the two-constituency cap. Everything touching money — state funding, audited party accounts, de-registration powers — was left alone.
That pattern repeats across every committee since. Reforms that regulate candidates tend to pass; reforms that regulate parties and their money tend not to. Naming this pattern in a Mains answer is worth more than listing ten recommendations.
3. Vohra Committee (1993)
- Headed by N.N. Vohra, then Union Home Secretary, constituted after the 1993 Bombay blasts
- Documented the nexus between politicians, criminals and bureaucrats — the celebrated "Vohra Report"
- Found that criminal gangs enjoyed patronage from politicians and protection from officials, and had in places built a parallel government
- Recommended a nodal agency to collate intelligence on the nexus. The full report was never placed in the public domain, which itself became a subject of litigation and criticism
4. Indrajit Gupta Committee on State Funding (1998)
- Examined the question the Goswami Committee had left unresolved — should the State pay for elections?
- Endorsed partial state funding in kind, not cash — facilities and materials rather than money transfers
- Confined the benefit to recognised national and State parties and their candidates, so that the exchequer did not fund frivolous contestants
- Crucially warned that state funding would only work if preceded by regulation of party finances and internal democracy — otherwise public money would simply be added to private money
5. Law Commission, 170th Report (1999)
- Titled Reform of the Electoral Laws, prepared under Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy
- Recommended state funding of elections, but only after a system for auditing party accounts was in place
- Called for internal or inner-party democracy — compulsory maintenance of accounts, regular organisational elections, and party constitutions filed with the ECI
- Recommended a collegium-like system for appointment of the CEC and ECs, including the CJI or a retired Supreme Court judge
- Proposed proportional representation on a partial basis and reform of the anti-defection framework
- Suggested restricting independent candidates, who crowd ballots without electoral prospects
6. National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution — NCRWC (2002)
- Chaired by Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah, a full constitutional review body whose electoral chapter remains widely cited
- Recommended campaign finance reform and disclosure obligations
- On criminalisation, proposed disqualification at the stage of framing of charges for offences punishable by five years or more, with safeguards against politically motivated cases
- Called for strengthening ECI independence, including a broader appointment process
- Recommended barring candidates from contesting more than one seat
7. Second Administrative Reforms Commission — 4th Report, "Ethics in Governance" (2007)
- Chaired by Veerappa Moily; the fourth report dealt squarely with political and electoral ethics
- Transparent appointment of the ECI through a collegium headed by the Prime Minister, with the Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, the Law Minister and the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha
- An independent secretariat for the ECI, on the model of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha secretariats, ending dependence on deputationists
- A statutory Model Code of Conduct with enforceable penalties
- Partial state funding, disqualification on framing of charges, and restrictions on exit polls
8. Law Commission, 244th Report (2014)
- Titled Electoral Disqualifications, prepared at the Supreme Court's instance
- Recommended disqualification at the stage of framing of charges for offences punishable by five years or more — a significant advance on the present rule that requires conviction
- Built in safeguards against misuse: charges must have been framed at least one year before the election, and the disqualification would not apply to cases filed within a year of the poll
- Recommended that filing a false affidavit be made a ground for disqualification, and that trials of sitting legislators be conducted on a day-to-day basis
9. Law Commission, 255th Report (2015)
- The most comprehensive modern statement of the reform agenda — Electoral Reforms
- Electoral financing: disclosure of all contributions above a threshold, caps on party expenditure and not merely candidate expenditure, and a move towards partial state funding
- Political party regulation: statutory recognition of internal democracy, compulsory annual audit by a CAG-approved auditor, and an explicit ECI power of de-registration
- Anti-defection: transfer the power to decide disqualification from the Speaker to the President or Governor acting on the ECI's advice
- Also addressed opinion polls, NOTA, restrictions on contesting from two seats, and the regulation of paid news
10. High Level Committee on Simultaneous Elections — Kovind Committee (2023–24)
- Chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind, constituted in September 2023, report submitted in March 2024 — an exhaustive document running to over 18,000 pages
- Recommended a two-step approach: first synchronise Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections, then hold local body elections within 100 days of that cycle
- Proposed insertion of a new Article 82A, an "appointed date" mechanism, and curtailment of the terms of Assemblies elected after that date so cycles align
- Recommended a single electoral roll and single EPIC prepared by the ECI in consultation with State Election Commissions
- Addressed the hung-house problem through fresh elections only for the unexpired remainder of the term
Committees at a Glance
| Committee | Year | Key Recommendations |
|---|---|---|
| Tarkunde Committee | 1974 | Lowering voting age, proportional representation, state funding, independent ECI |
| Dinesh Goswami Committee | 1990 | Government supply of electoral materials; limit to 2 constituencies; disqualification reform |
| Vohra Committee | 1993 | Documented the nexus between politicians, criminals and bureaucrats — the "Vohra Report" |
| Indrajit Gupta Committee | 1998 | Partial state funding in kind, restricted to recognised parties |
| Law Commission (170th Report) | 1999 | State funding, proportional representation, inner-party democracy, anti-defection reform |
| NCRWC | 2002 | Campaign finance reform, criminalisation, strengthening ECI independence |
| Second ARC (4th Report) | 2007 | Transparent appointment of ECI, independent secretariat, statutory MCC |
| Law Commission (244th Report) | 2014 | Electoral disqualifications — lifetime ban for heinous offences |
| Law Commission (255th Report) | 2015 | Comprehensive electoral financing reform, state funding, political party regulation |
| Kovind Committee | 2024 | Simultaneous elections in two steps; Article 82A; single electoral roll |
Every committee since 1974 has said broadly the same three things: clean the money, break the criminal nexus, and insulate the umpire. The remarkable fact is not that the diagnosis keeps changing — it is that it never does. — Legacy IAS Faculty
5. Key Electoral Issues — Critical Analysis
1. Criminalisation of Politics
- In the 2024 Lok Sabha, about 48% of elected MPs had declared criminal cases in their affidavits
- About 31% had serious charges such as murder, kidnapping and rape
- SC in Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018): directed Parliament to legislate a lifetime ban for serious offences; Parliament has not acted
- SC in Rambabu Singh Thakur (2020): directed candidates to publish criminal antecedents in newspapers and on social media, not just in the affidavit
- Root cause: parties prefer "winnable" candidates over clean ones — winnability over integrity
Disclosure alone has not reduced criminalisation — in fact, more candidates with criminal records are winning over time. Voters may prefer candidates who can "deliver" through extra-legal means. This indicates a systemic problem requiring structural reform beyond transparency.
2. Opaque Political Funding
- Political parties are among the most exempted entities from RTI and income tax audit
- Electoral bonds allowed anonymous corporate donations — the SC called it a tool for quid-pro-quo funding
- Even after bonds were struck down, cash funding below ₹2,000 per donor remains possible in bulk, and party annual accounts are not independently audited
- The Association for Democratic Reforms estimates that the known income of parties is only a fraction of actual spending
3. Misuse of State Machinery
- Government advertisements using public funds continue until the MCC kicks in
- Transfer of complaint-prone officers only happens after the MCC — reforms are needed to establish permanent election-time neutrality
- Freebies (revdis) announced just before elections — the ECI has limited power to regulate pre-MCC promises
4. Low and Unequal Voter Turnout
- Urban turnout is consistently lower than rural turnout — the phenomenon of urban apathy
- Migrant workers, homeless persons and those not enrolled face systematic exclusion
- Voting is not universally accessible — persons with disabilities and elderly voters face barriers
- Remote Electronic Voting Machines (RVMs) proposed but not yet deployed
5. Women's Representation
- India ranks around 140th globally in women's legislative representation
- The Women's Reservation Bill (Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam) was passed in September 2023, reserving 33% of seats for women in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies
- However, it will not be effective until after delimitation — likely 2029 or later
- The delayed implementation has been criticised as reform on paper
Constitutional Amendment: 106th Constitutional Amendment, 2023 · provides 33% reservation in the Lok Sabha, State Assemblies and the Delhi Assembly · effective only after delimitation following the next Census · also reserves 33% of SC/ST reserved seats for women · reservation to last 15 years from commencement.
6. Anti-Defection Weakness
- The 10th Schedule is enforced by the Speaker — a role that is often partisan
- SC in Nabam Rebia (2016): the Speaker's authority is questionable if he himself faces a removal motion
- SC in Subhash Desai (2023 — Shiv Sena split): highlighted gaps in the anti-defection mechanism and referred larger questions to a Constitution Bench
- ECI's proposal: transfer anti-defection decisions to the ECI as a quasi-judicial authority
6. Electoral Reforms Suggested by the ECI
The ECI has repeatedly written to the government and the Law Commission with reform proposals. Most remain unimplemented.
- One Candidate, One Constituency: ban candidates from contesting more than one seat simultaneously — prevents bye-elections when a winner vacates one seat
- Lifetime Ban for Serious Offences: persons convicted of offences carrying 5 or more years' imprisonment should face permanent disqualification, not just six years
- Equal Removal Protection for ECs: extend the parliamentary impeachment process to Election Commissioners, not just the CEC
- State Funding of Elections: government to fund candidates and parties meeting specified thresholds — reduces dependence on black money
- Common Electoral Rolls: use Lok Sabha electoral rolls for all elections — Panchayat, State and Municipal — to avoid duplication and exclusion
- Anti-Defection via ECI: transfer adjudication of defection cases from the Speaker to the ECI to ensure impartiality
- False Affidavit = Disqualification: filing a false affidavit on assets or criminal cases should be a ground for electoral disqualification
- Ban on Government Ads: government-funded advertisements should be prohibited 6 months before the election schedule, not just from the MCC date
- Independent Audit of Party Finances: parties should undergo annual independent audit, with accounts filed with the ECI made publicly accessible
- Regulation of Exit Polls & Opinion Polls: extend restrictions to the entire campaign period to prevent influencing voter behaviour
- Totaliser Machines: to protect voter privacy at constituency level — EVM results to be totalled before disclosure, preventing booth-level tracking of voting patterns
- Proxy/Postal Voting for NRIs and Migrants: enable remote voting to include excluded voter populations
Today, results are declared machine by machine, so anyone can see how a particular booth — and therefore a particular village, colony or community — voted. That invites both reward and retaliation after the result.
A totaliser mixes the votes of roughly fourteen machines before counting, so the constituency result is known but the booth-level pattern is not. It is a small technical fix with a large effect on the freedom to vote without fear, and it has been pending since 2014.
The fundamental conflict of interest: electoral reforms must be passed by the very legislators who benefit from the status quo. Parties with more money, criminal candidates, or incumbency advantages have little incentive to reform. This is the institutional paradox of electoral reform in India.
7. Value Addition — Supreme Court Judgments
| Case | Year | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain | 1975 | Free elections = basic structure; SC can review the election of the PM |
| Mohinder Singh Gill v. CEC | 1978 | Article 324 = reservoir of power; ECI can fill legal vacuums |
| ADR v. Union of India | 2002 | Mandatory disclosure of criminal antecedents, assets and education with nomination |
| PUCL v. Union of India | 2003 & 2013 | 2003: voters' right to know; 2013: NOTA directed |
| Lily Thomas v. Union of India | 2013 | Section 8(4) struck down — conviction means immediate disqualification, no stay for appeal |
| Public Interest Foundation v. UoI | 2018 | Directed Parliament to enact a law for lifetime ban on serious offenders; Parliament did not act |
| Rambabu Singh Thakur v. Sunil Arora | 2020 | Candidates must publish criminal antecedents in newspapers and on social media |
| Anoop Baranwal v. UoI | 2023 | Directed an independent selection panel for ECI appointments (PM + LoP + CJI) |
| Electoral Bonds Case | 2024 | Electoral bonds unconstitutional — violates Article 19(1)(a); SBI data disclosed to ECI |
| ADR v. ECI (SIR case) | 2026 | Upheld Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls under Article 324 read with Section 21(3), RPA 1950 |
8. Global Comparison
| Country | System | Key Feature | Lesson for India |
|---|---|---|---|
| USA | Decentralised; FEC regulates finance | States run their own elections; Super PACs allow unlimited independent spending | Decentralisation creates inconsistency; finance regulation remains weak even in mature democracies |
| UK | Electoral Commission (statutory) | Strict spending caps; party finances audited; rules enforced through the prosecution service | A statutory MCC with penalties and a transparent funding model are worth emulating |
| Germany | State funding of parties | Public money proportional to vote share; donations capped and disclosed | State funding reduces black money dependence; transparency is mandatory |
| Brazil | State funding only | Corporate donations banned in 2015; only individual and state funding allowed | Removing corporate donations cleaned up some corruption; India should consider it |
| Canada | Elections Canada | Individual donation caps; near-total transparency; corporate and union donations banned | Strict individual caps with disclosure represent the gold standard for funding reform |
Germany's model of proportional state funding and Canada's individual donation caps represent best practices. India's challenge is that reforms require legislative consensus from the very parties that benefit from the current opaque system — making international benchmarks aspirational but difficult to achieve without judicial or civil society pressure.
9. Recent Developments (2023–2026)
A. Funding and Transparency
- Electoral Bonds Struck Down (February 2024): a 5-judge SC bench unanimously held the scheme unconstitutional. Grounds: anonymous donations violate voters' right to information under Article 19(1)(a), and the scheme was a disproportionate restriction on free speech. SBI data was disclosed and revealed donations by companies under ED and CBI investigation
B. Representation
- Women's Reservation — 106th Amendment (September 2023): 33% reservation in the Lok Sabha, State Assemblies and Delhi. Effective only post-delimitation — likely 2029 or beyond. Critics call the delayed implementation a political calculation
- Update (April 2026): Parliament met in a three-day special session from 16 April 2026 to consider the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, the Delimitation Bill and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill. The package proposed expanding the Lok Sabha from 543 to up to 850 seats, decoupling delimitation from the post-2026 Census so that 2011 figures could be used, and thereby advancing women's reservation. The constitutional amendment failed to secure the required special majority on 17 April 2026, and the package fell. Women's reservation therefore remains tied to a future delimitation
C. Institutional
- ECI Appointment Act 2023: Parliament passed a law replacing the SC's selection committee with PM + Cabinet Minister + LoP, excluding the CJI. It remains under challenge in the Supreme Court, which heard the matter at length through 2026
- Shiv Sena and NCP party split cases (2022–23): exposed deep flaws in the anti-defection law and the Speaker's role. The SC held that Eknath Shinde's group could not be recognised as the original party without ECI adjudication; the NCP dispute between the Sharad Pawar and Ajit Pawar factions was resolved by the ECI in favour of the Ajit Pawar group in 2024
D. Conduct of Elections
- 2024 General Elections: the world's largest election — 96.8 crore eligible voters across 543 constituencies. The ECI deployed the cVigil app, the 1950 voter helpline and the Suvidha portal. It was the first election under the new ECI appointment law
- Remote EVM (RVM) proposal: the ECI proposed a pilot for migrant worker voting from registered polling stations outside their constituency. The all-party meeting was inconclusive and implementation remains pending
- Digital campaigning regulation: social media, deep fakes and AI-generated political content challenge the existing MCC framework. The ECI issued guidelines in 2024, but statutory regulation is still lacking
- Special Intensive Revision (2025–26): the ECI ordered a house-to-house revision of electoral rolls under Section 21(3) of RPA 1950 — Bihar first, where roughly 47 lakh entries were deleted, then twelve more States and UTs with final rolls on 7 February 2026. On 27 May 2026 the Supreme Court upheld the SIR as valid under Article 324 read with Section 21(3), while stressing procedural fairness and inclusivity
- ECINET (January 2026): a unified digital platform integrating over 40 ECI apps and portals in 22 languages, carrying the Know Your Candidate module; it sustained around 3 crore hits per minute on counting day, 4 May 2026
E. One Nation One Election
- Ram Nath Kovind Committee: the high-level committee submitted its report in 2024 recommending simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies. Constitutional amendments are required. The Bill was introduced in Parliament and referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee
- Update (2026): the 39-member JPC chaired by P.P. Chaudhary had its tenure extended by the Lok Sabha in March 2026 up to the Monsoon Session 2026. It has consulted stakeholders across ten States, concluding two days of consultations in Goa in July 2026, and has cited potential savings of nearly ₹7 lakh crore and a GDP gain of up to 1.6%
One Nation One Election — Balanced Analysis
| Arguments For | Arguments Against |
|---|---|
| Reduces election expenditure | Undermines federalism — State elections forced into the Lok Sabha cycle |
| Allows governance continuity | Difficult to manage mid-term falls of government |
| Reduces policy paralysis | Requires massive constitutional amendments — Articles 83, 85, 172, 174 and 356 |
| Uniformity of MCC application | Potential dominance of national issues over local concerns |
Constitutional requirement: at least five constitutional amendments plus ratification by at least half the States.
Keywords: cooperative federalism versus centralising tendency; electoral efficiency versus democratic pluralism.
10. Mains Answer Framework
Model Questions
- "Every committee on electoral reform since 1974 has reached the same conclusions; the failure is not of diagnosis but of will." Critically examine. (15 marks, 250 words)
- Discuss the role of the judiciary in driving electoral reform in India. Has judicial activism compensated for legislative inaction? (15 marks, 250 words)
- Examine the case for and against simultaneous elections in India with reference to federalism. (15 marks, 250 words)
- "Transparency has not cured criminalisation." Analyse with reference to the ADR and Rambabu Singh Thakur judgments. (10 marks, 150 words)
11. Conclusion & Way Forward
India's electoral machinery has proved it can deliver scale — nearly 97 crore electors, a million polling stations, results in a day. What it has not yet delivered is equality of influence: between the candidate who can raise crores and the one who cannot, between the party in office and the party outside it, between the voter with an identity document and the migrant without one.
- Money: cap party expenditure and not merely candidate expenditure; mandate independent annual audit of party accounts; move towards partial state funding with strict conditions
- Criminalisation: legislate on the Law Commission's 244th Report formula — disqualification on framing of charges for serious offences with anti-misuse safeguards — and fast-track trials of legislators
- Institution: a balanced appointment panel for the ECI, equal removal protection for Election Commissioners, and an independent secretariat
- Conduct: give the MCC statutory backing with defined penalties, extend the silence period to digital media, and regulate AI-generated political content
- Inclusion: operationalise remote voting for migrants, ensure accessibility for the elderly and disabled, and pair roll revision with a strong inclusion drive
- Representation: resolve the delimitation question so that women's reservation ceases to be reform on paper
Elections in India are administered superbly and financed opaquely. Until reform reaches the money and the criminal record, every improvement in machinery only makes an unequal contest run more smoothly. — Legacy IAS Faculty
12. Frequently Asked Questions
Which committees are most important for UPSC on electoral reforms?
Five are non-negotiable: Tarkunde (1974) for voting age and an independent ECI, Dinesh Goswami (1990) for the two-constituency cap and state funding debate, Vohra (1993) for the criminal-politician-bureaucrat nexus, Law Commission 244th (2014) for disqualification on framing of charges, and Law Commission 255th (2015) for comprehensive financing and party regulation. Add 2nd ARC (2007) for institutional reform and the Kovind Committee (2024) for simultaneous elections.
Which committee recommended the two-seat limit for candidates?
The Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990). It was implemented by amending Section 33(7) of the RPA 1951 in 1996, capping candidature at two constituencies. Both the ECI and the Law Commission have since recommended reducing this to a single seat.
Why has state funding of elections not been implemented?
Because nearly every committee has attached a precondition that has not been met. The Goswami Committee opposed state funding unless accompanied by strict controls; the Indrajit Gupta Committee limited it to funding in kind for recognised parties; and the Law Commission's 170th Report said it should follow, not precede, a working system of audited party accounts. Without party finance regulation, state funding would simply add public money to unregulated private money.
What is the status of women's reservation in 2026?
The 106th Amendment (2023) is on the statute book but its commencement is tied to delimitation following the next Census. The April 2026 legislative package sought to decouple it and advance implementation, but the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill failed to secure a special majority on 17 April 2026. Implementation therefore continues to await a delimitation exercise.
Has judicial intervention succeeded where Parliament failed?
Partly. The courts delivered mandatory candidate disclosure (ADR, 2002), immediate disqualification on conviction (Lily Thomas, 2013), NOTA (PUCL, 2013), publication of criminal antecedents (Rambabu Singh Thakur, 2020) and the striking down of electoral bonds (2024). But the Court cannot legislate: in Public Interest Foundation (2018) it directed Parliament to enact a lifetime ban and Parliament simply did not act — the clearest illustration of the limits of judicial reform.
Key Takeaways
- Free and fair elections are part of the basic structure — established in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and reaffirmed in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), which makes electoral reform a constitutional imperative rather than a policy option.
- Six drivers of reform: money power, muscle power, misuse of state machinery, representation gaps, low voter participation and the transparency deficit — with about 48% of 2024 Lok Sabha MPs declaring criminal cases and roughly 31% facing serious charges.
- Ten major committees since 1974 — Tarkunde, Goswami, Vohra, Indrajit Gupta, Law Commission 170th, NCRWC, 2nd ARC, Law Commission 244th and 255th, and Kovind — have converged on the same agenda: clean the money, break the criminal nexus, insulate the umpire.
- Goswami (1990) is the most consequential — its two-constituency cap was implemented in 1996, while its proposals on party audits, de-registration powers and state funding were not, illustrating that reforms regulating candidates pass while reforms regulating party money do not.
- Courts have driven most real change: ADR (2002) disclosure, Lily Thomas (2013) immediate disqualification, PUCL (2013) NOTA, Rambabu Singh Thakur (2020) publication of antecedents, and the February 2024 electoral bonds verdict — but Public Interest Foundation (2018) shows the Court cannot legislate a lifetime ban itself.
- The ECI's twelve standing proposals — one candidate one constituency, lifetime ban, equal removal protection for ECs, state funding, common rolls, anti-defection via ECI, false affidavit as disqualification, curbs on government ads, audited party finances, poll regulation, totalisers and remote voting — remain largely unimplemented because reform must pass through legislators who benefit from the status quo.
- 2026 updates: the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill failed on 17 April 2026, leaving women's reservation tied to a future delimitation; the Supreme Court upheld the SIR on 27 May 2026 under Article 324 with Section 21(3) of RPA 1950; and the ONOE JPC under P.P. Chaudhary continues consultations with its tenure extended to the Monsoon Session 2026.
- Global benchmarks: Germany's proportional state funding, Canada's individual donation caps with a ban on corporate and union money, Brazil's 2015 corporate donation ban, and the UK's audited party finances — all aspirational for India without judicial or civil society pressure.
Qualify Prelims? Start Mains Prep with Legacy IAS — Bangalore
Expert faculty, structured GS & Optional guidance, and Bangalore's most trusted UPSC coaching — all under one roof.


