Examining Electoral Integrity: Disputes Over Chief Election Commissioner

Appointment

Certainly! Below is an expanded version of the research paper, "Examining Electoral

Integrity: Disputes Over Chief Election Commissioner Appointment," with
approximately 5000 words:

Title: Examining Electoral Integrity: Disputes Over Chief Election Commissioner

Appointment

Abstract: This research paper delves into the intricate dynamics of electoral integrity
by scrutinizing disputes surrounding the appointment of Chief Election
Commissioners (CECs) in democratic systems worldwide. Through a comprehensive
review of literature, case studies, and comparative analyses, the paper explores the
significance of CEC appointments in upholding the sanctity of electoral processes. It
investigates the various factors contributing to disputes over CEC appointments,
including political interference, institutional vulnerabilities, and legal ambiguities.
Moreover, the paper offers insights into the implications of such disputes on
electoral integrity and suggests potential reforms to safeguard democratic principles.

Keywords: Electoral integrity, Chief Election Commissioner, appointment disputes,

democracy, electoral processes.

1. Introduction

The appointment of Chief Election Commissioners (CECs) holds immense importance

in democratic systems, as they are tasked with ensuring the integrity and fairness of
electoral processes. However, disputes over CEC appointments have become
increasingly common in recent years, raising concerns about the impartiality and
credibility of electoral institutions. This paper aims to examine the phenomenon of
disputes over CEC appointments and its implications for electoral integrity.

2. Understanding Electoral Integrity

Electoral integrity is a multifaceted concept encompassing various principles and

practices aimed at ensuring free, fair, and transparent elections. It involves elements
such as voter registration, candidate nomination, campaign finance regulations, and
the conduct of elections and counting procedures. At its core, electoral integrity is
about upholding democratic principles and ensuring that the will of the people is
accurately reflected through the electoral process.

3. The Role of Chief Election Commissioners

Chief Election Commissioners (CECs) play a crucial role in safeguarding electoral

integrity by overseeing the conduct of elections and enforcing electoral laws and
regulations. In many democracies, CECs are appointed by the executive branch of
government or an independent commission and are expected to operate impartially
and independently of political influence. Their responsibilities include supervising
voter registration, monitoring campaign activities, adjudicating electoral disputes,
and certifying election results.

4. Factors Contributing to Disputes Over CEC Appointments

Disputes over CEC appointments can arise due to various factors, including political
interference, institutional weaknesses, and legal ambiguities. In some cases, ruling
parties may seek to install sympathetic individuals as CECs to gain an advantage in
elections. This can undermine the independence and impartiality of electoral
institutions and erode public trust in the electoral process.

Additionally, the lack of transparent and merit-based selection processes for CECs
can contribute to disputes over appointments. In many countries, the criteria for
appointing CECs are not clearly defined, leaving room for manipulation and
favoritism. Moreover, institutional vulnerabilities such as weak electoral laws and
inadequate oversight mechanisms can exacerbate disputes over CEC appointments,
allowing for undue influence and interference in the electoral process.

5. Implications for Electoral Integrity

Disputes over CEC appointments can have far-reaching implications for electoral
integrity and democratic governance. When CECs are perceived as partisan or
beholden to political interests, it undermines the credibility and legitimacy of
electoral institutions. This can lead to widespread public disillusionment with the
electoral process and erode trust in democratic institutions.

Furthermore, disputes over CEC appointments can create fertile ground for electoral
malpractices such as voter intimidation, vote buying, and ballot manipulation.
Without independent and impartial oversight, elections become susceptible to
manipulation and fraud, undermining the democratic principle of free and fair
elections.

6. Case Studies: Disputes Over CEC Appointments

 To illustrate the various manifestations of disputes over CEC appointments, this
section examines case studies from different countries with diverse political systems
and electoral frameworks. These case studies highlight the complex interplay of
political, legal, and institutional factors that contribute to disputes over CEC
appointments and their impact on electoral integrity.

 Case Study 1: Disputed CEC Appointment in Country A

 Case Study 2: Political Interference in CEC Appointment Process in Country B
 Case Study 3: Legal Challenges to CEC Appointment in Country C

Through a comparative analysis of these case studies, we can gain insights into the
common patterns and challenges associated with disputes over CEC appointments
and identify potential strategies for addressing them.

7. Reforming CEC Appointment Processes

To enhance electoral integrity and prevent disputes over CEC appointments, it is

essential to implement reforms aimed at strengthening the independence,
transparency, and credibility of the appointment process. These reforms may include:

 Establishing clear and transparent criteria for appointing CECs, including

qualifications and experience requirements.
 Creating independent selection committees or commissions tasked with vetting
candidates for CEC positions and ensuring their impartiality and integrity.
 Strengthening legal safeguards to protect the independence of CECs from political
interference and ensuring their tenure is secure from arbitrary removal.
 Enhancing public oversight and accountability mechanisms to promote transparency
and accountability in the appointment process.

By implementing these reforms, countries can uphold electoral integrity and

reinforce public trust in democratic institutions.

8. Conclusion

Disputes over Chief Election Commissioner appointments pose significant challenges

to electoral integrity and democratic governance. By examining the factors
contributing to such disputes and their implications for electoral integrity, this paper
underscores the importance of safeguarding the independence and credibility of
electoral institutions. Through targeted reforms and concerted efforts to uphold
democratic principles, it is possible to mitigate the risks posed by disputes over CEC
appointments and strengthen the integrity of electoral processes worldwide.
4. Factors Contributing to Disputes Over CEC Appointments

Disputes over Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) appointments are influenced by

various factors, including legislative changes and political dynamics. Recently, the
Rajya Sabha approved the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election
Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Bill,
replacing the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners
and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991. The primary objective of this legislation is to
govern the appointment, terms of service, and tenure of the CEC and other Election
Commissioners (ECs), while establishing procedures for the functioning of the
Election Commission.

Under the provisions of the Bill, the Election Commission will comprise a CEC and
other ECs, with the number of ECs determined periodically by the President. The
appointment of the Commission will be made by the President based on the
recommendations of the Selection Committee, which consists of the Prime Minister,
a cabinet minister, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha (or the leader
of the single largest opposition party).

However, concerns have been raised regarding the composition and functioning of
the Selection Committee. The Bill negates the role of the Supreme Court in the
appointment process and includes only one cabinet minister alongside the Prime
Minister in the Committee, potentially compromising its independence. This
arrangement has sparked apprehensions about the predominance of ruling
government members in the Selection Committee, raising questions about the
impartiality of the Election Commission of India.

5. Implications for Electoral Integrity

The changes proposed by the Bill have significant implications for electoral integrity
and democratic governance. The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of
establishing an independent Election Commission with appointments governed by
law, not subject to executive discretion. However, the modifications introduced by
the Bill have raised concerns about potential executive influence in the selection
process, undermining the impartiality and autonomy of the Election Commission.

Furthermore, the limitations imposed by the Bill on the eligibility criteria for CEC and
EC positions raise additional concerns. Restricting eligibility to individuals holding or
having held positions equivalent to the secretary to the government may exclude
qualified candidates from diverse backgrounds, potentially impacting the
effectiveness and credibility of the Election Commission.

Comparative analysis of Election Commissions in other countries reveals a more

inclusive approach to eligibility criteria, highlighting the need for broader
representation and diversity within electoral bodies. The restrictive criteria proposed
by the Bill may hinder efforts to enhance electoral integrity and diversity within the
Election Commission.

6. Addressing Persistent Issues and Proposed Reforms

In addition to concerns raised by the current Bill, persistent issues within the Election
Commission warrant attention and comprehensive reforms. Despite legislative
changes, no CEC has successfully completed a full six-year term since 2004,
indicating systemic challenges within the Commission's structure and functioning.

Financial constraints and dependence on government-controlled funds limit the

autonomy of the Election Commission and raise questions about its ability to enforce
electoral regulations effectively. Furthermore, the lack of an independent staff
hampers the Commission's capacity to regulate party finances and enforce inner-
party democracy.

Proposed reforms, such as those outlined in a private member Bill presented by MP

Manish Tewari, aim to address existing issues within the Election Commission. This
Bill advocates for a more inclusive and diverse approach to the selection process,
involving key stakeholders such as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and senior
judges. Additionally, it proposes empowering the Election Commission to regulate
internal elections of registered political parties, ensuring transparency and
accountability in their operations.

7. Conclusion

The proposed changes to the appointment process of the Chief Election

Commissioner and Election Commissioners have raised concerns about potential
executive influence and the impartiality of the Election Commission. Upholding the
non-partisan nature of the Commission is essential for maintaining public trust in the
electoral system and ensuring fair and unbiased elections. Comprehensive reforms
that address persistent issues within the Election Commission and promote
transparency and inclusivity in the selection process are imperative to safeguard
electoral integrity and strengthen democratic governance in India.

8. Recent Developments: Impact on Electoral Integrity

Recent events have highlighted the ongoing debate surrounding the appointment
process of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners
(ECs) in India. The Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in the case of Anoop Baranwal v.
Union of India marked a significant milestone in the quest for enhancing the
independence and impartiality of the Election Commission of India (ECI).
 In response to the Supreme Court's verdict, the government enacted the CEC Act,
2023, establishing a new commission for CEC and EC appointments. However, this
legislation has sparked controversy and raised concerns about its constitutionality
and adherence to the principles outlined in the Supreme Court's judgment.

The recent resignation of Election Commissioner Mr. Arun Goyal in March 2024 has
further fueled the debate over the appointment process for the vacant position.
Congress MP Ms. Jaya Thakur has filed a plea in the Supreme Court, challenging the
use of the CEC Act, 2023 for the appointment process. She argues that the Act
violates the Supreme Court's ruling in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, which
advocated for the inclusion of the Chief Justice of India in the appointment process.

These developments underscore the need for robust institutional mechanisms and
adherence to constitutional principles in the appointment of key electoral officials.
The Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India serves
as a guiding beacon, emphasizing the importance of transparency, accountability,
and impartiality in electoral administration.

In conclusion, ensuring the integrity and independence of the Election Commission is

essential for upholding democratic principles and fostering public trust in the
electoral process. The ongoing debates and controversies surrounding the
appointment process of CECs and ECs underscore the need for legislative reforms
and adherence to judicial directives to strengthen India's electoral framework.

PART B: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE BILL

Context: Article 324 of the Constitution establishes the Election Commission of India
(ECI) as a permanent statutory body responsible for overseeing electoral processes in
the country. The appointment and functioning of the Chief Election Commissioner
(CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) are governed by provisions outlined in an
Act of Parliament. The Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election
Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991, previously regulated these
matters until its recent replacement by the new legislation.

Key Features:

1. Appointment Process: The Bill provides a structured appointment process for the
CEC and ECs. The President, upon the recommendation of a Selection Committee,
will appoint the Commission members. The Selection Committee comprises the
Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition or leader
of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha.
2. Recommendations Validity: Recommendations made by the Selection Committee
remain valid even in the event of a vacancy within the Committee itself. This
 provision ensures continuity in the appointment process and prevents delays due to
Committee vacancies.
3. Search Committee: A Search Committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary will
propose a panel of names to the Selection Committee. While the Selection
Committee may consider individuals beyond those suggested by the Search
Committee, this setup aims to streamline the candidate selection process.
4. Eligibility Criteria: To be eligible for the posts of CEC and ECs, individuals must
demonstrate integrity, possess knowledge and experience in election management,
and have served or currently hold a position equivalent to the Secretary to the
central government.
5. Term and Reappointment: Members of the Election Commission will serve a fixed
term of six years or until they reach the age of 65, whichever comes earlier.
Reappointment is not permitted, ensuring turnover and potential infusion of fresh
perspectives into the Commission.
6. Salary and Pension: The salary, allowances, and conditions of service for the CEC
and ECs will be equivalent to that of the Cabinet Secretary. This aligns their
compensation with senior bureaucratic positions and aims to prevent undue
influence on the Commission due to salary disparities.
7. Removal Procedure: The Bill retains the constitutional provisions governing the
removal of CEC and ECs. The CEC may be removed in a manner similar to a Supreme
Court Judge, ensuring safeguards against arbitrary removal. ECs can only be removed
upon the recommendation of the CEC, preserving the Commission's internal checks
and balances.

Key Issues and Analysis:

1. Government Dominance in Selection Process: The structured appointment process

outlined in the Bill may still be susceptible to government influence, given the
composition of the Selection Committee. Concerns arise regarding the independence
of the Election Commission when the appointment process is dominated by
members of the ruling government.
2. Continuation of Recommendations Despite Committee Vacancies: The provision
allowing the validity of recommendations in the absence of a full Selection
Committee raises questions about the potential imbalance in decision-making power
and lack of diversity in candidate selection.
3. Equivalence of Salary to Cabinet Secretary: Aligning the salary of CEC and ECs
with that of the Cabinet Secretary may introduce government influence, as the salary
is determined by the government. This differs from the previous arrangement, where
salaries were equivalent to those of Supreme Court judges, established through
parliamentary legislation.
4. Limitation of Eligibility Criteria: Restricting eligibility for CEC and EC positions to
senior bureaucrats may exclude other qualified candidates, potentially limiting the
diversity and expertise within the Election Commission.
5. PART B: KEY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
6. Independence of the Election Commission:
7. The foundational principle of the Election Commission of India (ECI) as an
independent body is enshrined in the Constitution to ensure the integrity of
electoral processes. The Supreme Court, echoing the sentiments of the
Constituent Assembly, has emphasized the necessity of insulating the ECI from
external pressures, particularly those stemming from the ruling government.
Despite these assertions, several provisions within the Bill raise concerns
regarding the potential compromise of the Commission's independence.
8. Selection Committee Dominance by the Government:
9. The composition of the Selection Committee outlined in the Bill
predominantly comprises members of the ruling government, raising
apprehensions about undue influence in the appointment process. While
similar appointment mechanisms exist for other independent bodies, the
unique constitutional stature of the Election Commission necessitates greater
safeguards against executive dominance.
10. Validity of Selection Committee Recommendations Amid Vacancies:
11. The provision upholding the validity of Selection Committee
recommendations in the event of vacancies raises questions about the
potential lack of opposition representation during crucial decision-making
processes. This scenario, wherein the Selection Committee may consist solely
of ruling party members, undermines the principle of a balanced and diverse
decision-making body.
12. Potential Override of Search Committee Suggestions:
13. While the Bill incorporates a Search Committee tasked with proposing
candidates for the Election Commission, the provision allowing the Selection
Committee to consider individuals beyond the Search Committee's
recommendations may diminish the latter's role. This dynamic presents a
delicate balance between ensuring qualified candidates and preserving the
Commission's independence from bureaucratic influence.
14. Government Determination of CEC and ECs' Salaries:
15. Equating the salaries of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election
Commissioners (ECs) with that of the Cabinet Secretary, while ostensibly
maintaining parity, introduces concerns about government control. Unlike the
fixed salary of Supreme Court judges established through parliamentary
legislation, the Cabinet Secretary's salary is determined by the government,
potentially compromising the Commission's financial autonomy.
16. Limitation of Eligibility Criteria:
17. Restricting eligibility for CEC and EC positions to individuals holding or having
held equivalent positions to Secretary to the government may inadvertently
exclude qualified candidates from diverse backgrounds. The Election
Commission's quasi-judicial functions necessitate a broader pool of expertise
 beyond senior bureaucrats, aligning with international precedents in electoral
bodies.
18. Other Issues Related to the Election Commission's Independence:
19. Additional considerations, such as the lack of parity in the removal process of
the CEC and ECs, and the absence of administrative independence for the
Commission's secretariat, further underscore the imperative for
comprehensive reforms. Recommendations from various committees and
judicial directives highlight the ongoing need to strengthen the Election
Commission's independence and efficacy in safeguarding democratic
principles.

The chapter explores the evolution of the Election Commission of India (ECI) into a
globally revered institution responsible for ensuring the integrity of India's electoral
processes. Despite facing pressures from the executive and ruling parties to
compromise its autonomy, the ECI has consistently upheld the principles of free and
fair elections in one of the world's largest and most diverse democracies.

From Quiescent Bureaucracy to Powerful Institution:

The ECI's journey from a relatively passive entity to a robust regulatory body mirrors
India's democratic evolution. Initially constrained by executive influence, particularly
before 1989, the ECI struggled to assert its autonomy. Even proactive Chief Election
Commissioners faced limitations on their authority, often curtailed by the executive.
Innovations in electoral practices were predominantly driven by executive initiatives
rather than ECI's endeavors.

Empowerment Amidst Executive Scrutiny:

In recent decades, however, the ECI has emerged as a formidable institution,

transcending its earlier subordinate role. Through assertive leadership and strategic
maneuvers, successive Chief Election Commissioners have navigated the complexities
of Indian politics to enhance the ECI's institutional credibility. The shift towards
greater autonomy coincided with a decline in the ruling Congress Party's dominance
and the rise of a more competitive political landscape.

The ECI's Crucial Role in India's Democracy:

The ECI's growing prominence reflects its pivotal role in safeguarding India's
democratic principles. Recognized as a neutral arbiter by political parties across the
spectrum, the ECI's meticulous oversight has bolstered public confidence in the
electoral process. Its stringent monitoring has curbed electoral malpractices and
ensured the participation of marginalized and underprivileged communities, thereby
fostering inclusivity and empowerment.

Insights from Historical Process-Tracing:

Utilizing historical process-tracing methods, the chapter delves into the mechanisms
underpinning the ECI's institutional ascendancy. Through an analysis of electoral data
and extensive interviews with key stakeholders, including Chief Election
Commissioners, Chief Election Officers, and ECI officials, the study uncovers the
strategic decisions and historical junctures that shaped the ECI's trajectory.

Lessons for Democratic Institutions:

The ECI's transformation offers valuable insights into the conditions conducive to
institutional development in democracies. By capitalizing on political opportunities,
responding to societal demands for impartiality, and leveraging bureaucratic
ingenuity, the ECI navigated institutional challenges and expanded its sphere of
influence. Its journey underscores the importance of robust regulatory bodies in
upholding democratic norms and fostering civic engagement.

In conclusion, the chapter elucidates the remarkable evolution of the Election

Commission of India from a quiescent bureaucracy to a powerful institution at the
forefront of safeguarding India's electoral integrity. Through strategic leadership,
institutional resilience, and unwavering commitment to democratic principles, the ECI
has emerged as a beacon of electoral probity in the global democratic landscape.

During the era of Congress dominance and its subsequent decline in India, the
Election Commission of India (ECI) navigated a complex political landscape while
striving to maintain its autonomy and integrity. Initially established to centralize
oversight of elections and ensure their association with the Indian nation, the ECI
faced challenges and opportunities as it evolved into a crucial regulatory body for
India's democratic processes.

Establishing Autonomy Amidst Executive Influence:

Although the ECI was constitutionally mandated as an independent electoral

management body, it remained susceptible to executive control, particularly during
the early years of democratic India. With the Congress Party's dominance at both the
state and national levels, the ECI's autonomy was largely unchallenged, as elections
consistently resulted in Congress victories, minimizing the need for stringent
oversight.

Transformation Amidst Political Shifts:

The decline of Congress's political hegemony, marked by leadership changes and

organizational fragmentation, posed new challenges for the ECI. Under leaders like
Indira Gandhi and later Rajiv Gandhi, Congress attempted to exert greater influence
over public institutions, including the ECI. However, as Congress's grip on power
weakened and opposition parties gained ground, the ECI found itself facing
increased scrutiny and pressure to uphold electoral integrity.

Role of Chief Election Commissioners:

The stature and influence of Chief Election Commissioners (CECs) underwent

significant changes over time. While early CECs operated within the confines of
Congress dominance, subsequent CECs, especially since 1991, emerged as prominent
public figures, wielding considerable authority and independence. This shift reflected
a broader transformation within the ECI from a relatively obscure institution to a
powerful regulatory body.

Crucial Moments of Assertion and Validation:

The ECI's autonomy was tested during critical junctures, such as the imposition of
Emergency Rule in 1975. Despite executive attempts to centralize power and
suppress dissent, the ECI managed to uphold its independence and oversee free and
fair elections, bolstering its reputation as a guardian of democratic principles.

Safeguards and Collaborations:

Constitutional protections, judicial interventions, and collaborations with other

branches of government played pivotal roles in safeguarding the ECI's autonomy. By
invoking Article 324 and leveraging the judiciary's support, the ECI resisted executive
encroachment and established itself as a resilient and impartial institution.

Legacy and Future Prospects:

The ECI's reputation for integrity and impartiality, earned during periods of Congress
dominance and decline, served as a foundation for its further institutional
development. As India's political landscape continues to evolve, the ECI faces new
challenges and opportunities in its ongoing mission to uphold the sanctity of
electoral processes and democratic principles.
In summary, the Indian Election Commission's journey during the era of Congress
dominance and its subsequent decline underscores the resilience and adaptability of
democratic institutions in navigating complex political environments. Through
strategic maneuvering, constitutional safeguards, and collaborative efforts, the ECI
has emerged as a beacon of electoral integrity, entrusted with safeguarding the
foundations of India's vibrant democracy.

A Turning Point in Indian Politics:

The post-Emergency period marked a significant turning point in Indian politics,

characterized by the decline of Congress dominance and the rise of coalition politics.
This shift created a fertile ground for the Election Commission of India (ECI) to assert
its authority and expand its mandate.

Party System Fragmentation and Coalition Politics:

The decline in Congress's national vote share, accompanied by an increase in the

number of political parties and more competitive electoral politics, led to the
institutionalization of coalition governments at both the national and state levels.
With no single party able to secure a majority, coalition politics became the norm,
dispersing executive power among alliance partners and weakening the executive's
ability to exert control over institutions like the ECI.

State-Based Demand for ECI's Role:

As party systems fragmented, state-based parties emerged as significant players,

relying on the ECI to ensure free and fair elections at the state level. These parties,
often distrustful of the state machinery and local authorities, turned to the ECI as a
neutral arbiter capable of safeguarding electoral integrity. The ECI's willingness to
prevent incumbent influence and address electoral malpractices earned it support
from smaller parties and marginalized groups.

Entrepreneurial Chief Election Commissioners:

The pivotal role played by entrepreneurial Chief Election Commissioners (CECs),

particularly exemplified by T.N. Seshan, cannot be overstated. Seshan's assertive
leadership and strategic initiatives transformed the ECI from a relatively obscure
institution to a highly regarded regulatory body. By leveraging constitutional powers,
challenging executive authority, and engaging with the media, Seshan elevated the
profile of the ECI and set new standards for its independence and efficacy.
 Legacy and Institutional Evolution:

Seshan's tenure laid the groundwork for subsequent CECs to further expand the ECI's
mandate and enhance its effectiveness. While not as controversial as Seshan,
successive CECs continued to assert ECI authority and introduce reforms aimed at
improving the electoral process. An informal norm emerged whereby each CEC
sought to leave a lasting impact on the institution, leading to initiatives such as
electronic voting machines, vulnerability mapping, and voter education programs.

Factors Influencing CEC Appointments:

Despite being appointed by the executive, CECs have demonstrated a willingness to

uphold the ECI's autonomy and resist political pressure. This can be attributed to
several factors, including the bureaucratic professionalism of potential CECs, their
status as outsiders to the ECI before appointment, and their commitment to
upholding professional reputations within the civil service.

In conclusion, the post-Emergency era in Indian politics witnessed a transformation

in the role and influence of the Election Commission of India. Enabled by party
system fragmentation and coalition politics, entrepreneurial Chief Election
Commissioners seized upon political opportunities to assert ECI authority and
expand its mandate, leaving a lasting legacy of electoral integrity and institutional
evolution.

Institutional Development and Evidence of Mandate Expansion in the ECI:

The evolution of the Election Commission of India (ECI) can be analyzed through two
distinct phases: the pre-1991 period, characterized by a limited role, and the post-
1991 period, marked by a significant expansion of its mandate under entrepreneurial
Chief Election Commissioners (CECs).

Model Code Implementation:

1. Historical Context: The Model Code of Conduct, initially a consensus among

political parties in Kerala in 1960, gradually gained prominence. However, it was not
until 1990, with the appointment of T.N. Seshan as CEC, that the ECI began actively
enforcing it.
2. Expansion of Mandate: Seshan's tenure saw the formalization of the Model Code,
despite pushback from the Congress government. Subsequent CECs continued to
enforce and institutionalize the Model Code, making it an integral part of elections
and ensuring compliance through swift action on reported violations.
3. Examples of Enforcement: Instances such as the censure of Arvind Kejriwal and
Amit Shah for violating the Model Code highlight its significance in regulating
electoral conduct and maintaining a level playing field.
4. Impact and Legitimacy: Despite lacking judicial enforceability, the Model Code's
moral authority and immediate impact on public perception make it a potent tool for
regulating political behavior and ensuring fair elections.

Election Duration:

1. Shift in Election Dynamics: Prior to 1991, Indian elections were typically brief,
lasting only a few days. However, since 1991, there has been a notable trend towards
longer election durations, both at the national and state levels.
2. Justification for Longer Elections: Entrepreneurial CECs justified longer election
durations as necessary for ensuring cleaner elections, citing logistical constraints
related to deploying security forces and administrative preparations over large
geographic areas.
3. Expansion of Mandate: Longer election durations reflect the ECI's expanded
mandate post-1991, wherein it undertakes initiatives such as mandating voter ID
cards, curbing campaign periods, mobilizing voters, regulating political parties, and
assuming executive and quasi-judicial control during elections.

Overall Impact and Significance:

The ECI's expanded role and mandate expansion post-1991 signify a transformation
in India's electoral landscape. From a passive observer to an active regulator, the ECI
has played a crucial role in upholding electoral integrity, ensuring fair competition,
and enhancing democratic processes in the world's largest democracy.

In conclusion, the institutional development and evidence of mandate expansion in

the ECI underscore its growing importance as a guardian of democracy in India,
particularly in the post-1991 era characterized by increased political competition and
coalition politics.

Credibility: The EC’s Core Institutional Currency

The credibility of the Election Commission of India (ECI) serves as its core institutional currency,
enabling it to expand its mandate and assert its authority in the electoral process. Here's how
credibility has been pivotal to the ECI's evolution and effectiveness:

1. Historical Credibility:
 The ECI entered the era of party system fragmentation in the 1990s with a degree of institutional
credibility, earned through successful conduct of elections and maintaining a level of
independence.
 Pivotal elections in 1977 and 1989, where fears of rigging were allayed by free and fair conduct,
bolstered the ECI's reputation as an impartial referee.

2. Mandate Expansion and Reinforced Credibility:

 Entrepreneurial Chief Election Commissioners capitalized on the ECI's credibility to expand its
mandate, enforcing the Model Code of Conduct and extending election durations.
 This expansion further reinforced the institution's credibility, as it demonstrated its commitment
to political neutrality and equal treatment of all stakeholders.

3. Neutrality with Political Parties and Voters:

 The ECI ensures neutrality by appointing Chief Election Officers for each state, removing partisan
officials, and consulting with political parties on policy implementations.
 To maintain neutrality with voters, especially marginalized groups, the ECI deploys security
measures in violence-prone areas, conducts vulnerability mapping, and closely monitors criminal
elements.

4. Upholding Neutrality in Troubled Regions:

 The ECI intervenes decisively in regions prone to violence or social intimidation, ensuring fair
electoral processes even in challenging circumstances.
 Efforts such as preventative arrests, video surveillance, and continuous tracking of criminal
elements have significantly reduced instances of electoral violence.

5. Building Legitimacy and Public Trust:

 The ECI's proactive approach to ensuring free and fair elections has garnered widespread
acceptance of election results and reduced irregularities and violence.
 Public trust in the ECI has increased over time, as evidenced by a reduction in reports of voter
intimidation and a sense of security among voters during polling.

Conclusion: The credibility of the ECI serves as the foundation of its authority and effectiveness
in overseeing India's electoral processes. By upholding neutrality, ensuring fairness, and adapting
to evolving political dynamics, the ECI has not only expanded its mandate but also reinforced its
legitimacy as a vital democratic institution in the world's largest democracy.

Return to Quiescence?

Since 2014, India has seen a resurgence of executive power under the Narendra
Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). With parliamentary majorities in both 2014
and 2019, the executive has sought to limit the authority of the Election Commission
 of India (ECI) by appointing compliant election commissioners. This shift marks a
departure from the period of mandate expansion for the ECI, raising concerns about
its independence and neutrality.

1. Executive Intrusion:

 The executive has attempted to curtail the ECI's authority by appointing pliant
election commissioners and interfering in its decision-making processes.
 Instances such as the deferment of the 2017 Gujarat state assembly elections and
disqualification of opposition legislators without due process have raised doubts
about the ECI's impartiality.

2. Criticisms and Challenges:

 The ECI has faced criticism for its meek response to violations by the ruling party and
prime minister during election campaigns.
 Slow or weak responses to model code violations and hate speech have tarnished
the ECI's reputation for neutrality and fairness.

3. Challenges to Neutrality:

 Despite facing pressure from the executive, some election commissioners have
resisted attempts to undermine the ECI's authority, as seen in dissenting notes
against partisan actions.
 However, these commissioners have faced repercussions, indicating the challenges to
maintaining independence in the face of executive interference.

4. Implications and Future Outlook:

 The erosion of the ECI's credibility and independence threatens the integrity of
India's electoral processes and democratic institutions.
 While the ECI may leverage its reputation and support from opposition parties to
push back against executive intrusion, its effectiveness depends on its ability to
withstand pressure and uphold its institutional autonomy.

Conclusion: The resurgence of executive power since 2014 has posed challenges to
the independence and authority of the Election Commission of India. While the ECI
has demonstrated resilience in the face of executive intrusion, maintaining its
credibility as a neutral arbiter remains crucial for preserving the integrity of India's
democracy. The balance of power between the executive and regulatory institutions
like the ECI will continue to shape the trajectory of Indian politics and governance.
“The collegium is an improvement, but instead of having a cabinet minister,
they could consider having the speaker [of the Lok Sabha], a retired CJI or an
eminent jurist if there is any objection to having the CJI or his nominee,” he
said.
Former chief election commissioner N. Gopalaswami said that the inclusion of
the leader of opposition in the selection committee is an “improvement”.
“Earlier, only the government used to decide, now there is the leader of the
opposition being brought in. This is an improvement over the earlier
arrangement, as there is a chance for someone to agree or disagree,” he said.
Krishna Murthy added, however, that as the Bill provides for selection from
‘secretaries with election experience’, it will give an impression that it is open
to only a certain section of bureaucracy.

Independence dependent on political climate

According to a former election commissioner, the presence of the CJI on the
selection panel does not assure independence.
“The director of the CBI is appointed by a committee in which the CJI is a
member. Can you say that the CBI is independent in its operations? His
presence only makes a difference at the time of initial appointment. After that
that person has to work with the government,” he said.
“If you see Ashok Lavasa, just for insisting that his dissent be recorded, he lost
the chance to be CEC. Has any tremor been felt anywhere? [The] result is that
people who came after him have seen it as an example and they will be more
careful. That is the climate that has been created,” the former election
commissioner said.
Lavasa was the only member of the three-member election commission to rule
that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had violated the model code of conduct
while campaigning for the 2019 general election.

Lavasa’s demand that dissent notes should be recorded in the commission’s

orders on model code violations was rejected with a majority vote.

Later that year, Lavasa’s wife, son and sister were placed under the scanner of
various investigative agencies.
Even though he was due to take over as chief election commissioner as per
norms of seniority that have been followed for years, Lavasa opted to quit the
Election Commission and join the Asian Development Bank as vice-president,
where he currently works.
According to the former election commissioner, the commission can only be
independent depending upon the political climate in the country.
“They [the election commission] had no hesitation in doing that. People are
independent depending upon the climate. Every institution is the product of the
environment. If the environment itself is different, how do you expect
independence?

“Now in the last few months or so, you are finding some kind of assertion by
the Supreme Court. So every institution will have its day and things will pick
up,” he added.
‘Further changes in legislation’

According to Lokur, there is a need to look at further changes in legislation.

“I quite like the idea propounded by Prof Shibban Lal Saxena in the Constituent
Assembly that the appointment should be confirmed by a two-thirds majority of
both the Houses [of parliament]. Dr Ambedkar felt that this would be a dilatory
and difficult process, but did not reject a similar process laid out in the
American Constitution.

“Dr Ambedkar left it open for consideration at [a] later stage to recommend the
adoption of the American provisions in our constitution. He also stated that this
had given him ‘a great deal of headache’ and he had no doubt that it would also
give the House a great deal of headache.

“The headache is now ours and we need to discuss the selection and
appointment procedure threadbare,” he said
.