India’s Law Commissions have periodically examined weaknesses in the electoral system and recommended reforms to strengthen the fairness, transparency and integrity of elections. Their proposals address political finance, criminalisation, internal party democracy, electoral administration and dispute resolution.

Law Commission of India’s 170th Report on Reform of the Electoral Laws (1999)

Key Recommendations

Regulation and Internal Democracy of Political Parties
- Statutory regulation of political parties
  - Insert a separate chapter in the RPA governing the registration, organisation, functioning and deregistration of political parties.
- Internal party democracy
  - Political parties should hold periodic organisational elections, elect their executive committees and take major decisions through democratic procedures.
- Democratic candidate selection
  - Candidates should be selected by the party executive based on recommendations of the concerned local party units.
- ECI’s regulatory powers
  - The Election Commission should supervise compliance and be empowered to impose penalties or withdraw registration for continuing violations.
Structural Reforms to the Electoral System
- Introduction of the List System
  - To rectify distortions where parties with significant vote shares receive few seats, the Commission suggests increasing the strength of the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies by 25%, with these additional seats filled via a list system based on the proportion of votes received by recognized parties.
- 5% Threshold for Representation
  - Any political party receiving less than 5% of the total valid votes cast in a general election should not be entitled to any seats, even if they win a constituency seat.
    - The Commission believed that a 5% threshold would discourage the proliferation and fragmentation of political parties, promote larger parties or pre-election coalitions, and thereby improve political stability.
- Barring Independent Candidates
  - The Commission recommends debarring independent candidates from contesting Lok Sabha and Legislative Assembly elections to prevent non-serious candidates from cluttering the process and to strengthen party-based democracy.
- Simultaneous Elections
  - There is a stated need to return to the goal of holding one election every five years for both the Lok Sabha and all State Assemblies simultaneously
    - The Commission acknowledged that this goal cannot be achieved overnight and suggests a staged approach
- One candidate, one constituency
  - A person should not be permitted to contest simultaneously from more than one parliamentary or Assembly constituency.
- Alternative voting system
  - The Law Commission’s 170th Report (1999) discusses the 50%+1 rule as a potential alternative method for direct elections to ensure that a candidate represents a true majority of the voters
  - Core Mechanism
    - Majority Requirement: No candidate would be declared elected unless they obtain at least 50% plus one of the total valid votes cast in their territorial constituency.
    - Run-off Election: If no candidate reaches this threshold in the first round, a “run-off” election would be held between the two candidates who received the highest number of votes.
    - Negative Vote: The proposal includes adding a “negative vote” column to the ballot. This allows voters to reject all candidates if they find them undesirable. For the purpose of the 50%+1 calculation, these negative votes are still treated as “votes cast”
  - Rationale
    - Reducing Caste and Religious Influence: The Commission noted that few constituencies have a single caste commanding over 50% of the vote. This rule would force candidates to build a broader consensus across different communities to win.
    - Moral Pressure on Parties: The combination of the 50%+1 requirement and the negative vote is intended to pressure political parties into fielding candidates with clean records rather than criminals or corrupt elements.
    - Deterring Voter Intimidation: The method is seen as a way to empower voters to express disapproval of bad candidates
  - Practical Challenges
    - Logistical Complexity: Indian elections are often spread over multiple dates due to the massive scale of personnel and security (police and paramilitary) required.
    - Increased Costs: A run-off would require re-stationing security forces, printing fresh ballot papers, and conducting a second round of polling, which is extremely expensive and time-consuming.
    - Counting Delays: Counting usually only begins after all phases of an election are complete, meaning a run-off would significantly delay final results
  - While the Law Commission described the objectives of the 50%+1 rule as “laudable”, it did not issue a definitive mandate. Instead, it recommended that the Government and Parliament make a final decision after weighing the benefits of the system against these substantial practical difficulties. It noted that the introduction of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) throughout the country would make holding such run-off elections easier
Political Finance
- Transparent party accounts
  - Recognised political parties should maintain audited accounts showing all receipts, their sources and expenditure, and submit them annually to the ECI for public inspection.
- Penalties for non-compliance
  - Failure to submit accurate accounts should attract daily penalties, possible deregistration and criminal prosecution for false statements.
- Candidate expenditure
  - Expenditure incurred by political parties and supporters for promoting a candidate should be included in the candidate’s total election expenditure.
- Conditional Partial State Funding
  - Partial state funding should be introduced only after ensuring internal party democracy, audited accounts and transparency in political funding.
Criminalisation of Politics
- Disqualification on Framing of Charges
  - For serious offences or electoral crimes, the framing of a charge by a court (not just a conviction) should be a ground for disqualification from contesting elections
- Disclosure by candidates
  - Candidates must be required to disclose their assets (including those of spouses and dependents) and details of any pending criminal cases in their nomination papers
- Stronger electoral penalties
  - Punishments for electoral offences under the RPA and criminal law should be substantially enhanced.
    - The Law Commission of India’s 170th Report (1999) argues that punishments for electoral offences are currently “ridiculously low” and “totally inadequate,” failing to deter individuals who use money and muscle power to influence elections. To address this, the Commission recommends a substantial enhancement of penalties under both the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Anti-Defection and Government Stability
- Recognise pre-election coalitions
  - A formally declared pre-election coalition should be treated as a political party for anti-defection purposes; withdrawal from it should attract disqualification.
- Remove split and merger exceptions
  - The exemptions allowing legislators to avoid disqualification through a party split or merger should be deleted to prevent engineered defection
- Deciding Authority
  - Transfer the power to decide on disqualifications from the Speaker to the President or Governor, acting on the Election Commission’s mandatory opinion
  - Amend Articles 102 and 191
    - Disqualification under the Tenth Schedule should be incorporated into Articles 102(1) and 191(1), respectively, while their existing clause (2) should be deleted. Consequently, such questions would be decided by the President or Governor according to the Election Commission’s opinion under Articles 103 and 192, instead of by the presiding officer.
      - Article 102(2) — A person shall be disqualified for being a member of either House of Parliament if he is so disqualified under the Tenth Schedule.
- Restrict the use of whip
  - Party whips should ordinarily be issued only on votes affecting the existence or continuance of the government, protecting both party discipline and legislators’ freedom.
- Constructive no-confidence motion
  - A no-confidence motion should be accompanied by a confidence motion naming an alternative leader.
- Limit repeated no-confidence motions
  - After a confidence or no-confidence vote, another no-confidence motion should not ordinarily be permitted for two years.

Law Commission Report No. 255 on Electoral Disqualifications(2014)

The report followed the Supreme Court directive issued in December 2013, in the Public Interest Litigation filed by the NGO Public Interest Foundation, related to decriminalisation of politics.

The report examined issues related to: (i) disqualification of candidates with criminal background, and (ii) consequences of filing false affidavits.

Key recommendations

The Commission examined the different stages at which disqualification may be triggered, and decided upon the stage of framing of charges.
- Conviction: The current practice of disqualification upon conviction has been unable to curb the criminalisation of politics, owing to long delays in trials and rare convictions. The law must evolve to act as an effective deterrent.
- Filing of police report: At the stage of the filing of the police report, there is no application of judicial mind. Thus, this would not be the appropriate stage at which disqualification may be effected.
- Framing of charges: The stage of framing of charges is based on adequate levels of judicial scrutiny. By effecting disqualification at this stage, with adequate safeguards, the spread of criminalisation of politics may be curbed.
Safeguards at the stage of framing of charges
- Certain safeguards must be included to prevent misuse of this provision and to address the concern of lack of remedy for the accused. These include:
  - Only offences that attract a maximum punishment of five years or above should be included within the ambit of this provision.
  - Charges filed within one year before the date of scrutiny of nominations for an election will not lead to disqualification.
  - The disqualification will operate until acquittal by a trial court, or a period of six years, whichever is earlier.
  - For charges framed against sitting MPs or MLAs, the trial must be expedited. It must be conducted on a day to day basis, and completed within one year.
  - If the trial is not concluded within a one year period then the MP/MLA may be disqualified at the expiry of that period. Alternatively, the MP/MLA’s right to vote in the House as a member, remuneration and other perquisites attached to his office should be suspended at the end of one year.
  - Disqualification at the stage of framing of charges must apply retroactively as well. Persons with charges pending (punishable by five years or more) at the time of this law coming into effect must be disqualified from contesting future elections. The safeguards for charges filed within one year of the date of scrutiny of nomination papers would apply.
False affidavits as grounds for disqualification
- On the issue of filing of a false affidavit, the Representation of the People Act, 1951 must be amended to reflect the following:
  - Conviction on the charge of filing of a false affidavit must be grounds for disqualification.
  - Punishment to be enhanced, from a maximum of six months imprisonment, to a minimum of two years imprisonment.
  - Filing of a false affidavit should qualify as a ‘corrupt practice’ under the Act.
- Consequently, trials of cases in relation to false affidavits must also be conducted on a day to day basis. Further, a gap of one week should be introduced between the last date for filing nominations and the date of scrutiny. This would give adequate time to file an objection on nomination papers.

Law Commission of India's Report No. 255 on “Electoral Reforms” (2015)

Key Recommendations

Election Finance and Disclosure
- Expenditure Period: The period for regulating election expenses should be extended to run from the date of notification of the elections to the date of declaration of results.
- Corporate Contributions: Amendments to the Companies Act, 2013, should require companies to authorize political contributions at an Annual General Meeting (AGM) rather than just through the Board of Directors.
- Disclosure Obligations: Candidates must disclose particulars (names, addresses, and PAN) of all individual contributions and party contributions. Political parties must mandatorily disclose all contributions in excess of Rs. 20,000, including aggregate sums from a single donor.
- Auditing and Transparency: Parties should submit annual accounts audited by a qualified chartered accountant from a panel maintained by the CAG. These accounts will fully and clearly disclose all the amounts received by the party and the expenditure incurred by it. The ECI will then upload these accounts online or keep them on file for public inspection on payment of fee.
- Penalties: Parties failing to comply with disclosure norms should face daily fines of Rs. 25,000 and potential de-registration
  - The disqualification of a candidate for a failure to lodge an account of election expenses and contributions reports should be extended from the current three period up to a five year period, so that a defaulting candidate may be ineligible to contest at least the next elections
Regulation of Political Parties
- Inner Party Democracy: New statutory provisions should regulate internal party democracy, including party constitutions, internal elections, and candidate selection.
  - Non-Compliance with Norms: If a party fails to comply with the internal democracy and organizational requirements of the new provisions, the ECI should have the power to inquire into the matter. If non-compliance continues after a prescribed rectification period, the ECI can impose fines or withdraw the party’s registration
- De-registration
  - The ECI should have the power to de-register parties for failing to contest elections for ten consecutive years.
- Ethical Standards
  - Political parties should be required to include a specific provision in their memorandum or rules stating they will shun violence for political gains and avoid discrimination or distinction based on race, caste, creed, language, or place of residence
Strengthening the Election Commission of India (ECI)
- The ECI should be strengthened by first, giving equal constitutional protection to all members of the Commission in matters of removability; second, making the appointment process of the Election Commissioners and the CEC consultative; and third, creating a permanent, independent Secretariat for the ECI.
  - Equal Protection: Article 324(5) should be amended to give all Election Commissioners the same constitutional protection in matters of removal as the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC).
  - Consultative Appointments: The CEC and Election Commissioners should be appointed by the President in consultation with a three-member collegium (Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India).
    - Elevation of an Election Commissioner should be on the basis of seniority, unless the three member collegium/committee, for reasons to be recorded in writing, finds such Commissioner unfit.
  - Independent Secretariat: A separate, permanent, and independent Secretariat should be created for the ECI
    - A new sub-clause should be added to Article 324 of the Constitution to provide for a separate independent and permanent Secretariat for the ECI along the lines of the Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha Secretariats under Article 98 of the Constitution. This will further improve the independence of the ECI.
Paid News and Political Advertisements
- The definitions of “paying for news”, “receiving payment for news” and “political advertisement” should be inserted in the RPA.
- Create a separate electoral offence
  - A new Section in RPA 1951 should make both paying and receiving payment for news electoral offences, with stringent punishment.
- Recognise paid news as a corrupt practice
  - Paying for news should be included as a corrupt practice under Section 123 of the RPA.
- Disclosure
  - Mandatory disclosure provisions should be introduced for all forms of media to help the public identify disguised political advertisements.
    - In order to curb the practice of disguised political advertisement, disclosure provisions should be made mandatory for all forms of media.
      - The purpose of disclosure is two fold; first, to help the public identify the nature of the content (paid content or editorial content); and second, to keep track of transactions between the candidates and the media.
      - Thus, a new section 127C should be inserted in the RPA to deal with the non-disclosure of interests in political advertising. The ECI can regulate the specifics of the disclosure required.
Government Advertisement
- Government-sponsored advertisements (except for health or poverty alleviation schemes) should be prohibited six months prior to the expiry of the House’s term to ensure a level playing field
  - The Commission recommended regulating and restricting government sponsored advertisements six months prior to the date of expiry of the House/Assembly to maintain the purity of elections; prevent the use of public money for partisan interests of, inter alia, highlighting the government’s achievements; and ensure that the ruling party or candidate does not get an undue advantage over another in the spirit of free and fair elections.
  - It recommended inserting a new Chapter in the RPA prohibiting State/Central government sponsored advertisements in the print or electronic media or by way of banners and hoarders, six months prior to the date of expiry of the term of the Lok Sabha/Vidhan Sabha. However, an exception has been carved out for advertisements highlighting the government’s poverty alleviation programmes or any health related schemes
Election Petitions and Dispute Resolution
- Election Benches
  - It recommended the introduction of one or more “election benches” in each High Court, designated so by the Chief Justice of the particular High Court, exercising jurisdiction over all election disputes under the RPA.
- Election Petition
  - The procedure for presenting election petitions should be made simpler and less formalistic by
    - requiring election petitions to be ordinarily filed in the Principal seat of the relevant High Court, although this can be shifted to another bench or place in the interest of justice;
    - removing requirement of impleading those candidates who have lost their security deposit as respondents to an election petition, if the petitioner makes an additional declaration that he himself or any candidate has been duly elected; and
    - removing non-compliance with section 117’s stipulation of security for costs as a ground for summarily dismissal under section 86.
- Expedited Trials
  - Trials should ideally be concluded within six months, and appeals to the Supreme Court should be restricted to questions of law only
    - The trial of election petitions by the election bench of the High Court should be expedited by providing for
      - daily trial;
      - minimising adjournments, with the possibility of imposing exemplary costs;
      - time limit of 45 days to file a written statement, with a further extension of 15 days, after which such right shall be forfeited;
    - The trial should be concluded within six months from the date of presentation of the petition; otherwise, a report should be sent to the Chief Justice of the High Court explaining the reasons for the delay.
    - The election bench of the High Court should pass its order under section 98 of RPA, 1951 within ninety days from the conclusion of arguments.
    - Appeals to the Supreme Court should now only be on the basis of a question of law, instead of the earlier provision permitting questions of fact or law as grounds for appeal. This appeal should be filed within 30 days of the High Court’s order, although an extension of a maximum of 30 more days can be granted, with nothing thereafter. The Supreme Court should try and conclude the appeal within three months from the date of appeal.
Voting and Candidates
- Contesting Seats: Candidates should be restricted to contesting from only one constituency.
- Independent Candidates: The Commission recommends disbarring independent candidates from contesting Lok Sabha or Vidhan Sabha elections to prevent the proliferation of “non-serious” candidates.
- Totaliser for Counting: The use of a “totaliser” for counting EVM votes is recommended to hide voting patterns in specific areas, thereby preventing voter harassment and intimidation.
  - The Commission reiterated and endorsed the ECI’s suggestion for introducing a totaliser for the counting of votes recorded in electronic voting machines to prevent the harassment of voters in areas where voting trends in each polling station can be determined.
  - Prior to the introduction of EVMs, ballot papers could be mixed under Rule 59A of the Election Rules, although this was not permitted for EVMs.
  - Using a totaliser would increase the secrecy of votes during counting, thus preventing the disclosure of voting patterns and countering fears of intimidation and victimisation.
  - Thus, similar to the existing Rule 59A, the Commission proposes to amend Rule 66A to empower the ECI to decide when, and in which constituency and polling booths, to employ a totaliser, after taking into consideration various factors and the overall context of the elections.
- Common Electoral Rolls
  - The Law Commission endorsed the ECI’s suggestions regarding the introduction of common electoral rolls for Parliamentary, Assembly and local body elections.
Anti-Defection Law
- The Law Commission recommended a suitable amendment to the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which shall have the effect of vesting the power to decide on questions of disqualification on the ground of defection with the President or the Governor, as the case may be, (instead of the Speaker or the Chairman), who shall act on the advice of the ECI. This would help preserve the integrity of the Speaker’s office.
State Funding of Elections
- The Commission did not consider a system of complete state funding of elections or matching grants to be feasible, given the current conditions of the country. Instead, it supported the existing system of indirect in-kind subsidies, with section 78B of the RPA being possibly amended in the future to expand these subsidies.
  - Section 78B — Supply of Items to Candidates
    - Between the election notification and polling date, the Election Commission may supply government-determined items to electors or candidates of recognised political parties. If supplied to candidates, their maximum permissible election expenditure may be correspondingly reduced.
Regulation of Electoral Trusts
- The Law Commission recommended amending the RPA to regulate electoral trusts, including their acceptance of contributions, disclosure obligations and penalties for violations.
Rejected Proposals
- Compulsory Voting:
  - The Law Commission did not recommend the introduction of compulsory voting in India and in fact, believed it to be highly undesirable for a variety of reasons including as being undemocratic, illegitimate, expensive, unable to improve quality political participation and awareness, and difficult to implement.
- Right to Recall:
  - The Law Commission was not in favour of introducing the right to recall in any form because it can lead to an excess of democracy, undermines the independence of the elected candidates, ignores minority interests, increases instability and chaos, increases chances of misuse and abuse, is difficult and expensive to implement in practice, especially given that India follows the first past the post system.
- NOTA and the Right to Reject (NOTA)
  - The Law Commission rejected the extension of the NOTA principle to introduce a right to reject the candidate and invalidate the election in cases where a majority of the votes have been polled in favour of the NOTA option.
  - This was premised on the fact that, first, the underlying premise of the Supreme Court’s decision in NOTA was the importance of safeguarding the right to secrecy, and this secrecy rationale does not pre-empt the right to reject. Second, good governance, the motivating factor behind the right to reject, can be successfully achieved by bringing about changes in political horizontal accountability, inner party democracy, and decriminalisation.
  - However, the issue might be reconsidered again in the future.

Sample Mains Question

Discuss the major electoral reforms recommended by the Law Commission of India for strengthening the fairness, transparency and integrity of elections in India.
[15 Marks | 250 Words]
Political finance, criminalisation of politics and weak internal democracy within political parties remain major challenges to electoral integrity in India. Examine the reforms recommended by the Law Commission in this regard.
[15 Marks | 250 Words]

Trending Today

✍️ Curated by InclusiveIAS Editorial Team

At InclusiveIAS, our editorial team is led by experts who have successfully cleared multiple stages of the UPSC Civil Services Examination, including Mains and Interview. With deep insights into the demands of the exam, we focus on crafting content that is accurate, exam-relevant, and easy to grasp.

Whether it’s Polity, Current Affairs, GS papers, or Optional subjects, our notes are designed to:

Break down complex topics into simple, structured points
Align strictly with the UPSC syllabus and PYQ trends
Save your time by offering crisp yet comprehensive coverage
Help you score more with smart presentation, keywords, and examples

🟢 Every article, note, and test is not just written—but carefully edited to ensure it helps you study faster, revise better, and write answers like a topper.