ELECTORAL REFORMS IN INDIA

INTRODUCTION
India is the largest and one of the most vibrant democracies of the world. It is true that we have been able to run a democratic system for more than 6 decades and we should be proud of it because very few developing nations have actually been able to run a democratic system. But in recent years unfortunately there has been a growing feeling that the Indian Political System was not working very well. The entry of criminal elements in politics, defections of legislators, communalization of politics, misuse of public office by persons in high positions and money power in elections have made it clear that there are deep seated problems in many sectors of Indian Parliamentary System. How and where did we fail? Does the fault lie with the constitution itself or its implementation? A very suitable answer is that it is mainly the political and electoral system, which has completely derailed the social, economic and administrative fabric of the country. The prime need of the hour to bring holistic reforms in the election process is to save the nation from the clutches of 3MPs i.e. money power, muscle power and mafia power and 4cs i.e. communalism, casteism, criminalization and corruption. However, to strike as the root of the problems has been a vigorous debate on criminalization of politics and illegitimate use of excessive and unaccounted money power in election. Several sensible and practical suggestion have also been offered but all efforts at reform have been stymied for want of parliamentary action as it is true that our political parties and leaders, clamour for electoral reforms only just before the elections, but as soon as they come to power they turn a deaf ear to them. The legitimacy of the entire democratic system of governance depends essentially on the efficacy and effective working of the electoral mechanism.If the verdict of the people which forms the basis of the propriety and legitimacy of the political system is vitiated by unethical methods,the faith of the people in the people itself sets eroded and ultimately destroys the very foundations of democracy. In many countries democracy has lost its legitimacy for their failure to evolve an electoral process which maintains this vital credibility.In almost all the countries of the South Asia the

problems associated with the electoral process have caused grave concerns about the future of democracy. In India for instance violence and corruption linked to the electoral process have been two major concerns.The Indian Election Commissions report on the first general election(195152) mentioned that 88.6 million voters cast their vote in a perfectly peaceful atmosphere.There were only minor breaches of law and order in a few polling stations in some of the states.But by the time the fourth general elections were held in 1967,the Election Commission had begun to sound alarm bells.It said in its report: Regretttably the record of peaceful polling was broken at the last general elections.Owing to serious disturbances or apprehended breach of peace,poll was adjourned at 12 polling stations in 5 different Assembly constituencies of Bihar.One or two sporadic instances of violent disturbances were reported from Assam,Andhra Pradesh,Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal.The subsequent reports on the fifth general elections of 1971-72,the sixth in1977 and seventh in 1979-80 etc kept on reporting on the alarming increase in violence,booth capturing,and other electoral malpractices in many parts of India,but more specifically in Bihar,Uttar Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir.The parliamentary elections in 1989 and 1991 only confirmed the trend. A central issue relating to the electoral process in India is the funding of elections.In India this problem has been one of the core issues.Election Funds are clearly the biggest source of corruption in India.And since it begins at the top,the other forms of corruption then become rampant at various levels of the bureaucracy,especially at the cutting edge where the citizen comes into direct contact with the official. Alarmed at the ever increasing problems associated with the electoral process in 1990 the V.P.Singh Government appointed a high powered all party Committee headed by the then Law Minister of India Dinesh Goswami.Its report was itself not entirely satisfactory.In the main,the Goswami Committee did not accept the principal recommendations made by V A Pai Panandiker and Ramashroy Roy in their paper prepared for the Morarji Desai Government in 1977 in favour of state funding of elections and audit of party funds The Background Paper on Electoral Reforms prepared by the Core Committee under the Union Law Ministry and co-sponsored by the Election Commission of India in December 2010 discussed recommendations made by various committees to date in order to fulfil its purpose of providing background information for substantive dialogue in regional and national consultations. In the Background Paper published in 2010 the committee had called

for wide participation from experts and ordinary citizens. Many of the experts have given their opinion but even now the ordinary citizens are unaware about such a paper on electoral reforms. In my paper I would like to give a clear view about each of the item discussed in the Background paper about Conduct and Better Management of Elections and also the recommendations suggested by them. 1. PROLIFERATION OF CANDIDATES Proliferation of candidates is one of the major problems faced during the time of election. According to the Election Commission of India, Too many candidates in the election fray puts unnecessary and avoidable stress on the management of elections and increases expenditure on account of security, maintenance of law and order, and requires extra number of balloting units of voting machines, etc. This situation can only be tackled by implementing various strict measures by which non serious candidates get discouraged from standing in the elections. Increasing the security deposit is one of the measures which will discourage the non serious candidates who never win the elections but stand for the election each time. Under Section 34 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 each candidate for election to the House of the People is required to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- as security deposit. For State Assembly elections and elections to the Council of States and Legislative Councils, the security deposit is Rs.5,000/-. The amount of security deposit was last revised in 1996, raising the earlier amount of Rs. 500/- for Lok Sabha elections and Rs.250/- for Assembly elections to the current levels. The revision was made primarily to discourage non-serious candidates from jumping to the electoral arena. There were instances in the past where hundreds of candidates filed nominations from some constituencies with the intention of upsetting the election process there. The revision in the security deposit in 1996 had the desired result in the Lok Sabha elections in 1998 and 1999, as there was a substantial decline in the number of candidates in these elections and in the assembly elections during this period. The average number of candidates at the Lok Sabha elections of 1998 was nine. At the recently held general election to the House of the People and Legislative Assemblies, the number of contesting candidates showed an increasing trend again. A large number of such candidates are non serious candidates and they predictably end up polling negligible number of votes. Too many candidates in the election fray puts unnecessary and avoidable

stress on the management of elections and increases expenditure on account of security, maintenance of law and order, and requires extra number of balloting units of voting machines, etc. Prior to the recent elections, the Commission had made a proposal for increasing the security deposit to Rs. 20,000/- in the case of election to the House of the People and Rs.10,000/- for Legislative Assembly election. For candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the deposit amount would be half the respective amounts. if any independent candidate fails to win five percent of the vote or more, he should be debarred from contesting as an independent for the same office for six years, an independent candidate who loses election three times consecutively for the same office as an independent should be permanently debarred from contesting election to that office. However, there has been no response from the government to these proposals. The Commission is also of the view that aforesaid Section 34 should be suitably am ended so as to empower the Commission to prescribe the security deposit before every general election to the House of the People. Resorting to amendment of the Act will not be feasible before every general election.

2. RESTRICTION ON OPINION POLLS Various agencies conduct poll surveys prior to the poll on the likely voting pattern and publish and disseminate the results of such surveys through different media. Similarly, on the date of poll, actual result of the election is sought to be predicted on the basis of information collected from the voters. Results of such surveys, called Exit Poll , are published and disseminated after the poll is over. In the case of an election, where poll is taken on a single day, there cannot be any serious objection in publishing the results of Exit Polls after the close of poll. However, in many general elections, poll has to be staggered over different dates mainly for law and order and security related reasons. In such cases, publishing the result of opinion poll on the earlier phases will have the potential to influence the voting pattern in the subsequent phases. Similarly, the opinion polls which are conducted during the run-up to the poll are also likely to influence the minds of the electors. The Commission has been of the view that there should be some restriction or regulation on the publishing / dissemination of the results of opinion polls and exit polls. The Commission had issued

some guidelines in this regard in 1998. This was challenged in petitions before Courts and subsequently on the observation of the Honble Supreme Court that the Commission did not have the power to enforce the guidelines the same were withdrawn by the Commission.

In the context of the recent general elections, the Commission had convened a meeting of political parties on the 6th April, 2004 to discuss the issue of Opinion Polls and Exit Polls. The meeting was attended by representatives of all the six national parties and eighteen out of the forty five State parties. The unanimous view of all the participating members was that conducting the opinion polls and publishing results thereof should not be allowed from the day of issue of statutory notification calling the election and till the completion of the poll. It was suggested that in a multi-phased election where poll is taken on different dates, such prohibition in the conducting and publishing the result of Opinion Polls should be for the entire period starting from the date of notification of the 1st phase of election and until the completion of the poll in the last phase. On the subject of Exit Polls, all the political parties were of the view that in a multi-phased election, result of Exit Polls should not be allowed to be published until the completion of the poll in the last phase. After obtaining the views of the political parties, the Commission, on the same day (6.4.2004), recommended to the Law Ministry that there should be a specific provision in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, prohibiting publishing and disseminating the result of Exit Polls and Opinion Polls during the period mentioned in the above paragraph. The Law Ministry obtained the opinion of the Attorney General of India, who opined that prohibiting the publication of Opinion Polls and Exit Polls would be a breach of Article 19 (1) of the Constitution of India. He suggested that certain guidelines could be laid down to provide that while disseminating results of poll surveys, the agency concerned should provide the public with sufficient information regarding the name of political party / organization which commissioned the survey, the identity of the organization conducting the survey and the methodology employed, the sample chosen and the margin of error, etc and that it is open to the Commission in exercise of its plenary powers under Article 324 to issue directions requiring the media to comply with the guidelines.

The Commission reiterates its view that there should be some restriction on publishing the results of Opinion Polls and Exit Polls. Such a restriction would only be in the wider interests of free and fair elections. Regarding the argument about the right to freedom of

information sought to be linked to the dissemination of results of Opinion and Exit Polls, it

has to be noted that the past experience shows that in many cases, the result of elections have been vastly different from the results predicted on the basis of the exit polls. Thus, the information claimed to be disseminated turned out to be disinformation in many cases. The Commission recommends that there should be a restriction on publishing the results of such poll surveys for a specified period during the election process. In many of the western democracies, there exist such restrictions for various periods. The Election Commission had recommended that there should be provision in the law putting restrictions on publishing the results of opinion polls and exit polls for a specified period during the election process. By the recent amendment of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 a new Section 126A has been inserted in the Act prohibiting conducting of exit polls and publishing results in any manner, during the period starting from 48 hours before the close of poll in an election. In a multi-phased election, the prohibition will last till the close of poll in the last phase. However, the amendment does not cover opinion polls. Thus, results of opinion poll can be published even on the day of election polling. Although dissemination of results of opinion polls would be prohibited during the 48 hours period before the conclusion of poll by virtue of Section-126 (1) (b) on electronic media, there is no provision of law to restrict dissemination through print media (since 126 (1) (b) does not apply to print media).

3. PROHIBITION OF CAMPAIGN DURING THE LAST 48 HOURS Campaigning during the last 48 hours of the election make the people confuse. It is the time for them to analyze who is to be given the chance to represent them. People discuss among themselves about the efficiency of the candidates during this time. Majority of the people just look at the party label and vote for elections without thinking whether that particular candidate is efficient or not. But the minority wait till the end. They wait for the campaigning to get over so that they could analyze whom to vote for. These are the people who just look at the calibre of the candidate rather than party symbol. Unfortunately we have a very less number of people in this category. During this 48 hours they will make their decision. As per the existing law political advertisements in TV and Radio are prohibited, there is no ban on advertising in the print media and door-to-door campaigning.

The Election Commission recommends that Section 126 should apply to print media as well. Furthermore, it recommends that house to house visits by candidates/supporters should be specifically prohibited during the said 48 hour period. It is the opinion of the Commission that the house-to-house visit/ contact in the last hours provides that opportunity for indulging in malpractices such as trying to bribe electors with cash.

4. TOTALIZER FOR COUNTING VOTES Currently votes are tallied by individual EVMs at individual polling stations. This exposes the trend of voting in a particular voting station, making the electorate of that area vulnerable to backlash by candidates or elected officials in retribution. Moreover the use of totalizer will ensure a secret ballot system as guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Since electronic voting machines provide no scope for mixing of votes, candidates gets to know the number of votes polled at a particular booth this at times leads to victimization of voters. The Election Commission recommends an amendment be made to the Conduct of Elections Rules to provide for the use of totalizer for counting of votes cast at more than one polling station where EVMs are used, so that the trend of voting in individual polling station areas does not get divulged and the electors may not be subjected to any harassment or victimization on that account. 5. NEUTRAL /NEGATIVE VOTING There is a system in Indian constitution, as per the 1969 act, in section 49 -O that a person can go to the polling booth, confirm his identity, get his finger marked and convey the presiding election officer that he doesnt want to vote anyone. But in reality this is not possible the voters who exercise the option of not voting at the election under Rule 49-O would only be deemed to have abstained themselves from voting. The Commission has received proposals from a very large number of individuals and organizations that there should be a provision enabling a voter to reject all the candidates in the constituency if he does not find them suitable. In the voting using the conventional ballot paper and ballot boxes, an elector can drop the ballot paper without marking his vote against any of the candidates, if he chooses so. However, in the voting using the Electronic Voting Machines, such a facility is not available to the voter. Although, Rule 49 O of the Conduct of

Election Rules, 1961 provides that an elector may refuse to vote after he has been identified and necessary entries made in the Register of Electors and the marked copy of the electoral roll, the secrecy of voting is not protected here inasmuch as the polling officials and the polling agents in the polling station get to know about the decision of such a voter. The Commission recommends that the law should be amended to specifically provide for negative / neutral voting. For this purpose, Rules 22 and 49B of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 may be suitably amended adding a proviso that in the ballot paper and the particulars on the ballot unit, in the column relating to names of candidates, after the entry relating to the last candidate, there shall be a column None of the above, to enable a voter to reject all the candidates, if he chooses so. Such a proposal was earlier made by the Commission in 2001. 6. IRREGULARITIES IN POLLING An accurate electoral roll is the sine qua non of a free and fair election. The enormity and complexity of maintaining a correct electoral in a country, as vast as India, with increasing mobility of a large proportion of the population cannot be overemphasised. But this is also one of the primary responsibilities of the Election Commission. Every citizen expects, and rightfully so, to be able to cast his/her vote without let or hindrance anywhere in the country that he/she happens to be on the day of polling as the Constitution guarantees every citizen a fundamental right to move freely throughout the territory of India, and to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; under Articles 19(1)(d) and (e). Political parties and influential persons manage large-scale registration of bogus voters, or large-scale deletion of names of unfriendly voters. The use of different electoral rolls for elections to Parliament and State Assemblies (prepared and maintained by the Election Commission of India) and for elections to panchayats and local bodies (prepared and maintained by the respective State Election Commissions) is a totally unacceptable practice. It results in unnecessary duplication, extra expenditure, and tremendous confusion in the minds of the voters at the time of polling. Rigging through muscle power and intimidation continues to be a feature of the electoral system though on a lesser scale, primarily due to the use of EVMs and a number of steps

taken by the Election Commission such as vulnerability mapping and much more stringent maintenance of law and order during the pre-polling and polling days. The Goswami Committee Report of 1990 recommended that the Election Commission should be empowered to take strong action on the report of returning officers, election observers, or civil society in regards to booth capture or the intimidation of voters. The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution recommends that the Election Commission should have the power under Section 58A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to order a fresh election, void the election results, or order a re-poll in such cases. It further recommended that the Election Commission should make use of electronic surveillance equipment as a deterrent to booth capture or intimidation of voters. 7. RESTRICTION ON GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ADVERTISEMENTS Free and fair elections depend to a significant degree upon the ability of the news media to function in an impartial and professional manner. Adherence to the standards of accuracy, objectivity and balance in news and other information programming is essential. Departure from these standards can deprive the public of a balanced picture of the contending parties as well as of important issues raised in the election campaign. Upholding the standards of professional journalism is difficult in the election campaign context under any conditions. Objectivity may require reporting facts that are detrimental to one contender or another. Accuracy may demand reporting a story differently from the political contestant's perception of the circumstances. Balance is difficult to achieve in any one report but must be strived for over a range of broadcasts. The most prevalent problem concerning broadcast coverage in transitional settings is imbalanced coverage of the political parties and candidates both quantitatively and qualitatively. Most often, the governing party receives considerably more coverage than the opposition. At the same time, the governing party may be presented in a disproportionately favourable light, while the opposition is presented negatively. It has been seen that on the eve of election, the Central and various State Governments embark on advertisement spree in the guise of providing information to the public. The expenditure on such advertisements is obviously incurred from the public exchequer. It is common knowledge that the advertisements are released with an eye on the elections, to influence the electors. In the Model Code of Conduct for the Guidance of Political Parties and

Candidates, there is a clause [ item VII(iv)] which prohibits issue of advertisement at the cost of public exchequer during election period, for the prospects of the party in power. The Model Code of Conduct comes into operation only from the date on which the Commission announces an election. The advertisements released prior to the announcement of elections, as is the practice usually resorted to, cannot be prohibited under the Model Code. Apart from the fact that public money is spent for partisan interests of the party in power in such advertisements, this practice is also contrary to the spirit of free and fair election, as the party in power gets an undue advantage over other parties and candidates. The Election Commission proposes that where any general election is due on the expiration of the term of the House, advertisements of achievements of the governments, either Central or State, in any manner, should be prohibited for a period of six months prior to the date of expiry of the term of the House, and in case of premature dissolution, from the date of dissolution of the House. Here, advertisements / dissemination of information on poverty alleviation and health related schemes could be exempted from the purview of such a ban. The Commission also recommends that there should be specific provisions that name or symbol of any political party or photograph of any of the leaders of the party should not appear on such hoardings/banners.

8. VICTIMIZATION OF OFFICERS DRAFTED FOR ELECTION DUTIES

The Election Commission utilizes the services of a large number of government officers for election duties who perform important statutory functions in connection with preparation of electoral rolls and conduct of elections. The Election Commission has observed many of these officers are later subjected to humiliation and even vindictive disciplinary action by the government.

The Election Commission recommends that in the case of the government officers performing statutory functions in connection with preparation of electoral rolls, or in the conduct of elections, consultation with the Election Commission and its concurrence should be made compulsory before initiating any disciplinary/legal proceedings by the government. In the case of those officers who have ceased to hold election related positions, consultation with

the Commission should be mandatory for initiating any disciplinary/legal proceedings for a period of one year from the date on which the officer ceased to hold election related position.

9. MEASURES FOR ELECTION COMMISSION The Background Paper mentions three items: (a) The same constitutional protection to all Election Commissioners as is available to the Chief Election Commissioner; (b) all such functions concerning the Secretariat of the Election Commission, consisting of officers and staff at various levels, such as their appointments, promotions, etc., be

exclusively vested in the Election Commission on the lines of the Secretariats of the Lok Sabha, and Rajya Sabha, Registries of the Supreme Court and High Courts etc. (c) that its budget be treated as charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. In addition to the above that were mentioned in the Background Paper, some more recommendations can be added:(i) Appointment of the CEO from cadre of another state: Chief Electoral Officers of states are currently appointed from the IAS cadre of the state. Some such CEOs are sometimes not able to discharge their functions as CEO as they are apprehensive that after their term is over, they will have to work under the same political authorities over which they exercised powers during elections as CEO. To enable a CEO to work fearlessly without these apprehensions, CEOs should be deputed from a state different from the one the cadre of which they belong. (ii) Prohibition of taking other offices after retirement of The Election Commissioners: The Election Commissioners should not be eligible for any office after retirement for a period of at least 5 years. They should also not be allowed to join any political party for a further period of 5 years after retirement.

10. MISUSE OF PARTIES

RELIGION FOR ELECTORAL GAIN BY POLITICAL

Though, the use of religion or caste as a vote catching device during elections is a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act 1951, the fact remains that these factors have been playing an important role over the years in deciding the fate of the candidates in elections. A number of petitions containing allegations against the returned candidates for using caste and religion are either dismissed by various courts or pending in absence of substantial evidence. The low rate of urbanisation linked with the low literacy rate, unemployment and under-employment made the political parties realise that the political ideology alone cannot mobilize the voters and thus religion, caste, region and sect became handy tools for their exploitation during elections. The British rulers had devised a system of separate electorates based on religion, caste and race (Indian Council Act of 1909 and Government of India Act 1919) in order to intensify the division of Indian society and weaken the Independence movement. Keeping in mind this evil design of the Britishers and the multi faceted structure of Indian society, the framers of the Indian constitution did away with these Acts after Independence and unity, integrity of the nation and secularism were incorporated as basic features of the Constitution, for governance of the country. But even after governing ourselves for more than half a century we are yet to overcome the hangover of divisive designs of the Britishers. The problems relating to caste and religion have become so acute that no political leader or party dare to contest the election without manoeuvring a combination of caste and religious groups in the constituencies. The Liberhan Ayodhya Commission of Inquiry recommended, inter alia, that complaints of misuse of religion for electoral gain should be speedily investigated into by the Election Commission. The Election Commission informed the government (Letter dated January 29, 2010) that such investigations should be carried out by the investigating agencies of the state. However, the Election Commission invited the attention of the government to the Representation of the People (Second Amendment) Bill, 1994, whereby an amendment was proposed providing for provision to question acts of misuse of religion by political parties before a High Court. Similar recommendations made by the Goswami Committee were included in a Bill introduced in the Rajya Sabha in May 1990. The Government withdrew this Bill in 1993, stating that a revised Bill would be introduced. However, these provisions have never been considered since then. The Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms, in its report in 1990, made the following recommendations: Election Commission shall have the power to make recommendations to

the appropriate authority (a) to refer any matter for investigation to any agency specified by the Commission (b) Prosecute any person who has committed an electoral offence under this Act or (c) appoint any special court for the trial of any offence or offences under this Act (RP Act 1951). The Election Commission recommends that above mentioned provisions should be reconsidered.

11. FILING PETITION AGAINST DEFEATED CANDIDATE ON GROUNDS OF CORRUPT PRACTICE The tenor of Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India is that disputes relating to elections shall not be called into question in any Court, but in a specialized tribunal. It is a nonobstante clause which states that no election to the Parliament or to the Legislative Assembly or Council of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition. This election petition would be presented to such authority in such manner as would be provided by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature. Subsequently, The Representation of the People Act, 1951 was passed by Parliament which, among other things, provided for challenging elections through election petitions to an election tribunal whose decision would be final. This election petition would be presented only after the publication of the name of the returned candidate i.e. after the elections got over. The rationale behind this was to ensure smooth conduct of elections. Yet in a series of decisions the Apex Court as well as numerous High Courts have interpreted these provisions as giving them jurisdiction to try election cases. As per the existing law, election petition can be filed only for challenging the election of a returned candidate. If a defeated candidate has indulged in corrupt practice, there is no provision for election petition or a declaration against such candidate.

The Election Commission has recommended in its letter dated 24th April 2009 that the law should be amended to provide for filing election petitions in cases of commission of corrupt practice by a losing candidate. In the same letter, it was also suggested that the period by which the candidates are required to file their account of election expenses should be reduced to 20 days from the present 30 days, so that more time is available for others to

scrutinize the accounts and to take the matter to the Court in Election Petitions in cases of spending in excess of the ceiling. Alternatively, the period for filing Election Petition may be increased to 60 days. 12. FALSE DECLARATION IN CONNECTION WITH ELECTIONS TO BE AN OFFENCE Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, contains a provision providing for punishment with imprisonment up to one year for making a false declaration in connection with preparation/revision of electoral roll. There is no such provision in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in relation to conduct of elections. During the course of an election, the Election Commission has observed several cases of such false statements/declarations before the election authorities such as by candidates, representatives of political parties etc. A provision for punishment for false statement / declaration would be a deterrent against frivolous complaints and petitions.

The Election Commission recommends that there should be a provision for penal action against those making any false declarations in connection with an election. Such a provision would provide for a similar punishment for false declarations in connection with conduct of elections, such as false complaints of booth capturing or false complaints about the conduct of election officials. The Law Commission has also supported this recommendation in the following words:-We also reiterate the proposals to enhance the punishment for various electoral offences mentioned in the R.P. Act as well as in the Indian Penal Code. All of them are electoral offences and seriously interfere with a fair electoral process. They foul the electoral stream by letting in all kinds of distortions and evils into the electoral system and finally into our body-politic. The punishments at present provided are totally inadequate and are ridiculously low, hence need to be enhanced. 13. RESTRICTION ON THE NUMBER OF SEATS FROM WHICH ONE MAY CONTEST As per the law as it stands at present [Sub-Section (7) of Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951], a person can contest a general election or a group of bye-elections or biennial elections from a maximum of two constituencies. There have been several cases

where a person contests election from two constituencies, and wins from both. In such a situation he vacates the seat in one of the two constituencies. The consequence is that a byeelection would be required from one constituency involving avoidable labour and expenditure on the conduct of that bye-election. It is better to amend such a law as it is not practical in the present Indian scenario where people are fighting for seats to contest in the election. In such a case one candidate contesting in two constituencies is out of question. Most of the people might not even know such a law exists in India. The Commission is of the view that the law should be amended to provide that a person cannot contest from more than one constituency at a time. The Commission will also add that in case the legislature is of the view that the provision facilitating contesting from two constituencies as existing at present is to be retained, then there should be an express provision in the law requiring a person who contests and wins election from two seats, resulting in a bye-election from one of the two constituencies, to deposit in the government account an appropriate amount of money being the expenditure for holding the bye-election. The amount could be Rs.5,00,000/- for State Assembly and Rs.10,00,000/- for election to the House of the People. Council election and

14. DISQUALIFICATION ON FAILURE TO LODGE ELECTION EXPENSES Under Section 10A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Election Commission may disqualify a candidate for three years for failure to lodge the account of election expenses with the District Election Officer (DEO) within 30 days of the declaration of the result of the election. Thus, the period of disqualification may end by the time of the next general election to that House. Therefore, no effective purpose is served by the disqualification (except that the person cannot contest in the odd bye-election that may be held during the 3 year period). Section 77(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 makes it mandatory for every candidate to the House of the People or a State Legislative Assembly to keep a separate and correct account of all expenditure incurred or authorized by him or by his election agent, between the date on which he was nominated and the date of declaration of the result of election, both dates inclusive. The total of the said expenditure shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed under Section 77(3) of R.P. Act, 1951.

The Election Commission recommends that the period of disqualification under Section 10A should be increased to 5 years, so that the disqualified person does not become a candidate at the next general election to the House concerned.

CONCLUSION Electoral reform has become a major political issue in India. Unfortunately, most political parties have not shown the desired degree of commitment to the central issue of maintaining integrity and sanctity of the electoral process. Their concerns are more with immediate gain and since the ruling party at the Centre or the States has a certain vested interest in no reforms, the fight has in effect been between the concerned citizenry and the political parties. The reality is that those contesting the election are no ordinary offenders and include those who win and become lawmakers. The battle process for reforms of the electoral process is by no means going to be easy or certain. But it is quite clear that public opinion is stacked strongly against the abuses of the electoral process and against the use of money or muscle power. It is a process which will determine to a great extent whether Indias democratic system will work for better or for worse. The principal issue are two. One relates to the entire electoral process from enrolment of eligible voters to holding free and fair elections, in which there are no corrupt practices or booth capturing, no rigging and use of violence to prevent voters from exercising their electoral choice or misuse of official machinery by the ruling party to influence the electoral outcome. The second relates to the corruption and criminalization perpetuated by the political parties by way of collection of funds and use of criminal elements in elections, some of whom have also entered the electoral fray. Both threaten the sanctity and credibility of the Indian electoral process and a great deal of public concern today is how to prevent the ills of the present electoral system. The fundamental benefit from a successful and free and fair election is that it creates a legitimate and representative government. At a minimum a free and fair election reflects an election in which all the major players compete equally and accept the outcome of the process. Thus the successful conduct of elections themselves depend on a series of other

conditions which form the body of the democratic process, and whose realization is to a large extent the essence of the transition from authoritarian to democratic consolidation. Moreover, the conduct of equality elections and the required framework for such elections is one of several critical preconditions that need to be in place before democracy can be seen to be in place. This is the reason why it is important to engage in the process of developing and refining the electoral process, and also understanding what is needed in order to have free and fair elections towards consolidating democracy.