Election Reforms: Corrupt Practices, EC Initiatives, and Judicial Interventions

Elections are the lifeblood of a democracy, but they are only as healthy as the rules that govern them. India’s electoral system has evolved through a constant push and pull between politicians trying to bend the system and institutions, especially the Election Commission and the Supreme Court, working to straighten it out. This topic covers the election offences defined by law, the reforms the EC has introduced over decades, the gaps in how the Commission itself is constituted, and the landmark judicial decisions that have reshaped Indian elections.

What Counts as a Corrupt Practice Under the RPA

The Representation of the People Act lays out a detailed list of activities that qualify as corrupt practices (actions that undermine the fairness of an election). Understanding each one matters, because these are not just theoretical prohibitions; they form the legal basis for challenging and overturning election results.

• Bribing voters or candidates — Any form of gratification (money, gifts, favours) offered to voters for casting or not casting their vote counts as corruption. The same applies to payments made to candidates for withdrawing or not withdrawing their nomination. This targets the most direct form of election manipulation: buying people off.
• Interfering with free electoral choice — Any direct or indirect interference with a voter’s right to freely choose a candidate, whether by the candidate or their election agent, is a corrupt practice. This covers intimidation, coercion, and undue influence.
• Communal and sectarian appeals — Asking voters to vote or not vote on the basis of religion, race, caste, community, or language is illegal. Elections are meant to be decided on governance and policy, not identity markers.
• Promoting group hatred — Deliberately stirring up enmity or hatred between different classes of Indian citizens on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language during elections is a serious offence. This goes beyond personal vote-seeking; it targets the social fabric itself.
• Glorifying sati — The propagation or glorification of sati (the practice of a widow immolating herself on her husband’s funeral pyre) is treated as a corrupt practice. This provision sends an unambiguous signal that regressive social customs have no place in electoral politics.
• False character attacks — Publishing any false statement of fact about the personal character or conduct of a candidate is prohibited. Note the word “false”: factual criticism is fine, but fabricated attacks cross the line.
• Booth capturing — Physically seizing control of a polling station, whether by the candidate, their agent, or any other person acting on their behalf, is one of the most blatant forms of electoral fraud. It involves stuffing ballot boxes, intimidating voters, or preventing legitimate voting.
• Misusing government machinery — Obtaining any assistance from government servants to boost a candidate’s election prospects is a corrupt practice. Government employees are supposed to remain neutral during elections; using their position or access to help a particular candidate corrupts both the election and the civil service.

The Dilution Problem: How Disqualification Grounds Get Weakened

Laws that disqualify tainted candidates look strong on paper, but they have been diluted in practice through two routes.

The Section 8(4) Saga

The most significant dilution came through Section 8(4) of the RP Act. This section allowed convicted Members of Parliament and state legislators to continue holding their seats for three months after conviction, giving them time to file an appeal in a higher court. As long as the appeal was pending, the conviction was treated as suspended, and the legislator kept their position.

The Supreme Court put an end to this in the Lily Thomas case of 2013. The Court struck down Section 8(4) on the ground that it violated Article 14 (right to equality). The reasoning was straightforward: an ordinary citizen convicted of a serious offence faces immediate disqualification from contesting elections, so why should a sitting legislator get special treatment? The provision created two classes of convicted persons, one privileged and one not, with no rational basis for the distinction.

Parliament did not accept this quietly. It attempted to introduce an amendment that would have created a 90-day cooling-off period for convicted legislators, essentially recreating the same protection in a different form. However, the amendment faced intense public backlash and was eventually withdrawn before it could be passed into law.

The Office of Profit Loophole

A separate pattern of dilution involves the office of profit rule. The Constitution disqualifies legislators who hold paid government positions, the logic being that financial dependence on the executive compromises legislative independence. But in several cases, state legislatures have passed laws to exempt specific positions from the office of profit definition.

A notable example occurred with the Delhi legislature, which passed a law declaring that parliamentary secretaries do not hold an office of profit. This meant that individuals occupying these positions could continue serving as legislators without facing disqualification, even though they held positions that clearly carried government privileges and responsibilities. Such targeted exemptions hollow out the disqualification provision, because any position can theoretically be shielded by passing a narrow exemption law.

How the Election Commission Has Reformed Elections

The Election Commission of India has not waited passively for Parliament to fix every problem. Over the decades, it has introduced several reforms on its own authority that have materially changed how elections are conducted.

The Model Code of Conduct

The EC first issued a Model Code of Conduct (MCC) for political parties during the fifth general elections in 1971. The MCC is a set of guidelines that all parties and candidates must follow once elections are announced. It covers everything from campaign behaviour to the use of government resources. While the MCC is not a statute (it lacks legal enforceability in the strict sense), the EC enforces it through administrative action and public pressure, and parties generally comply. The code has been revised multiple times since 1971 to address new challenges.

Mandatory Criminal Disclosure

In 1998, the EC made it compulsory for all candidates to submit details of their past criminal antecedents along with their election affidavit. Before this, voters had no systematic way of knowing whether a candidate standing before them had a criminal record. This single reform made it possible for citizens and the media to scrutinise candidates’ backgrounds before polling day.

Electronic Voting Machines

The introduction of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) was one of the most consequential changes in Indian electoral history. EVMs replaced paper ballots, saving money, cutting down logistical complexity, speeding up counting, and eliminating many forms of ballot fraud such as stuffing and invalid votes. The transition was gradual, but EVMs are now the standard across all elections.

Discouraging Non-Serious Candidates

To reduce the clutter of frivolous nominations, the Commission started charging a nominal fee of Rs. 10,000 for contesting elections. This small financial barrier helps filter out candidates who have no serious intention of competing, making the ballot paper cleaner and the process more manageable.

Internal Party Democracy

The EC requires all recognised political parties to hold their organisational elections regularly. This is meant to ensure that parties practise some form of internal democracy rather than being run as personal fiefdoms. While enforcement remains imperfect, the requirement creates at least a baseline standard.

Election Spending Oversight

The EC has fixed legal limits on how much a candidate can spend during the campaign period. Beyond just setting the limit, it also requires candidates to file detailed expense accounts within 30 days of the results being declared. Failure to file is itself a ground for disqualification, giving the spending limit real teeth.

Electors Photo Identity Cards

In 1993, the Election Commission ordered the issuance of Electors Photo Identity Cards (EPICs) for all voters. The goal was to improve the accuracy of electoral rolls and prevent impersonation at polling booths. By the 2004 Assembly elections, it became mandatory for voters possessing EPICs to present them at the time of voting, tightening the link between voter identity and the electoral roll.

Gaps in the CEC Appointment Process

For all the reforms the Election Commission has driven, the process by which the Commission itself is constituted has serious weaknesses built into the Constitution.

Article 324 states that the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners shall be appointed as per a law made by Parliament. The critical problem: Parliament has never enacted such a law. In the absence of legislation, the appointment power rests entirely with the executive (the President acting on the advice of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers). This means the very body that is supposed to referee elections is picked by one of the contestants.

Beyond the appointment process, four additional gaps stand out:

• No prescribed qualifications — The Constitution does not define what qualifications a CEC or Election Commissioner should have. There is no requirement for legal expertise, administrative experience, or any other criterion. The quality of appointments depends entirely on executive judgment.
• No bar on post-retirement appointments — A retiring Election Commissioner is not constitutionally prohibited from accepting further government appointments. This creates a potential incentive problem: a commissioner approaching retirement might be tempted to go easy on the ruling party if a lucrative post-retirement position is on offer.
• No clear power division — The Constitution does not spell out how powers are divided between the Chief Election Commissioner and the other Election Commissioners. In practice, the CEC is treated as the first among equals, but the absence of a clear legal framework for power-sharing can lead to internal disagreements that weaken the Commission’s functioning.

Key Amendments to the RP Act

Parliament has amended the Representation of the People Act several times to address emerging challenges. The most significant changes include:

• Exit poll ban (Section 126A) — This section prohibits the publication of exit polls until elections are fully over. In a country where general elections stretch across multiple phases over several weeks, publishing exit polls from early phases could influence voters in later phases. The ban ensures all voters make their choice without being swayed by projected outcomes.
• Repeal of Section 8(4) — Following the Supreme Court’s Lily Thomas judgement, the provision allowing convicted legislators to stay in office while appealing was repealed. This was a major step toward decriminalising politics, as convicted lawmakers now lose their seats immediately upon conviction.
• Voting rights for detained persons (Section 62(2)) — This amendment allows a person who was previously detained to contest elections after their detention ends. A person is no longer treated as having ceased to be an elector as long as their name is still on the electoral roll. This protects the political rights of individuals who may have been detained under preventive detention laws.
• NRI voting (Section 20A) — This section enables Non-Resident Indians to vote from their current place of residence through the postal ballot system. It extends democratic participation to the millions of Indian citizens living abroad, who would otherwise be unable to exercise their franchise.
• NOTA button — On the direction of the Supreme Court, the Election Commission introduced the None of the Above (NOTA) option on EVMs. Instead of simply boycotting an election when all candidates seem unworthy, voters can now formally register their rejection. This gives citizens a legitimate way to express dissatisfaction without forfeiting their participation.

Landmark Supreme Court Interventions

The judiciary has been one of the most powerful forces for electoral reform in India. Several Supreme Court judgements have created rules that Parliament was unwilling or unable to make on its own.

Mandatory Candidate Information (ADR Case, 2002)

In the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) case of 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that candidates must provide a comprehensive list of personal information at the time of filing their nomination. This includes details of criminal cases, assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications. The decision transformed the information landscape of Indian elections, giving voters genuine data to evaluate candidates.

Barring Persons in Custody (Jan Chaukidari Case)

In the Jan Chaukidari vs Union of India judgement, the Supreme Court ruled that all persons in lawful police or judicial custody forfeit their right to stand for election. If you are behind bars because a court or police authority has placed you there, you cannot contest. This prevents jailed individuals from running shadow campaigns from prison.

Striking Down Section 8(4) (Lily Thomas Case, 2013)

As discussed above, the Lily Thomas vs Union of India ruling declared Section 8(4) of the RP Act unconstitutional. The Court held that the three-month appeal window for convicted legislators violated the equality principle of Article 14, because ordinary citizens face immediate disqualification upon conviction.

NOTA as a Voter Right

The Supreme Court held that voters must have the option of negative voting, the ability to reject all candidates as unworthy. The Court directed the Election Commission to add the NOTA button to EVMs. This was framed as a fundamental aspect of free choice: a voter should not be forced to choose the “least bad” candidate when they find all options unacceptable.

VVPAT for Election Integrity (Subramanian Swamy Case)

In the Subramanian Swamy case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) is indispensable for free and fair elections. A VVPAT allows voters to physically verify that the EVM recorded their vote for the intended candidate. The Court directed the EC to equip all EVMs with VVPAT systems, adding an important layer of transparency and auditability to electronic voting.

Regulating Manifesto Freebies

The Supreme Court observed that freebie promises made by political parties in their manifestos shake the roots of free and fair elections. The concern is that lavish pre-election promises of free goods and services distort voter choice by turning elections into bidding wars. The Court directed the Election Commission to frame guidelines for regulating the contents of manifestos, pushing for greater discipline in campaign promises.

Blocking Caste-Based Rallies

The Allahabad High Court stayed caste-based rallies in Uttar Pradesh, shutting down a key avenue that major political parties used to consolidate support along caste lines before elections. While this was a High Court order rather than a Supreme Court ruling, it reflected the broader judicial trend of intervening against communal and caste-based mobilisation during elections.

Non-Disclosure Can Nullify Results (2015)

In a 2015 ruling, the Supreme Court held that even after a Returning Officer has officially declared the election result, the election can be nullified if the winning candidate failed to disclose their criminal records. This raised the stakes dramatically: hiding your past is no longer just a filing offence; it can cost you your seat even after you have won.

The RPA’s Anti-Criminal Toolkit: Key Sections

The RP Act contains several specific sections designed to keep criminal elements out of the legislative process. Together, they form a layered defence:

Section	Purpose
Section 8	Provides for disqualification based on specific offences. A conviction attracting imprisonment of 2 years or more leads to automatic disqualification.
Section 33A	Requires every candidate to file an affidavit disclosing cases in which they have been accused of offences punishable with imprisonment of 2 years or more. This puts criminal history on the public record before voting begins.
Section 125A	Prescribes punishment of imprisonment up to six months or a fine for anyone who declares wrong information in their election affidavit. This gives teeth to the disclosure requirement under Section 33A.
Section 123	Defines corrupt practices including bribery, communal appeals, booth capturing, and misuse of government machinery. Proven corrupt practices can lead to the election being set aside.
Section 29C	Mandates political parties to furnish reports about their financing to the Election Commission. This creates a paper trail for party funds and helps check illegitimate funding by criminal networks.

These sections work as a chain: Section 33A forces disclosure, Section 125A punishes false disclosure, Section 8 disqualifies convicted offenders, Section 123 defines and penalises corrupt practices, and Section 29C follows the money. No single section is foolproof, but together they create multiple points at which criminal candidates can be identified, challenged, and removed.