Supreme Court redeems voter's confidence

The Lok Sabha elections 2024 have resurfaced the discussion on free and fair elections in India. The focus has been on ensuring transparency and independence throughout the election process, from the lead-up to election day itself, and the roles of constitutional authorities involved. This attention stems from the belief that democracy relies heavily on the integrity of elections, which is fundamental to the Constitution. But where does the Indian voter fit into all of this? Should their decisions be well-informed and free from outside influence? Does it matter if the political party they support is receiving funding from anonymous entities with hidden agendas? Is it important that the organization overseeing elections remains independent from the government in power? And lastly should the government be responsible for taking all necessary measures to ensure voters feel secure in casting their votes? The answer to all these questions is a resounding yes.

Two Important decisions

The Supreme Court in its two recent Constitution Bench decisions has come to the aid of the Indian voter and answered some of these questions. In a case called Anoop Baranwal (2023), the Court was concerned with the fact that the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) was being appointed solely by the ruling government, and the Parliament despite having the power to lay down an appointment mechanism under Article 324(2), had failed to do so. Parliament's delay for almost seventy-five years was seen as harmful to fair elections and voters' rights, which are crucial to democracy. To safeguard these rights, the Court stepped in to create an independent body to appoint the CEC, which included the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice, until Parliament made law. This was important to restore the voter’s confidence and its perception of an unbiased CEC. However, soon after this decision, Parliament passed the CEC Act 2023, replacing the Chief Justice with a Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister in the selection committee, thus giving more power to the ruling government. Currently, this Act is being challenged in the Supreme Court.

In a different case of Association for Democratic Reforms (2024) (ADR), Court struck down the electoral bonds scheme and various amendments made to the Finance Act, Representation of People’s Act & Companies Act as violative of the voter’s right to receive information under Article 19(1)(a). Here, rather than inaction in Baranwal, it was the Parliament & Executive’s conscious decision to implement a law that holds back information from the voters about the party’s funding and permits unlimited funding from companies. Though the Parliament had the competence to make law, it acted in complete derogation of the fundamental right of an informed voter. Even the privacy of the donor as a competing right could not save the scheme.

Thus, where the Parliament acted or refrained from doing so, it came under the constitutional scanner and became answerable to the voter.

Each Organ has a duty

The duty to ensure fair elections has been cast on the Election Commission by the Constitution. As Justice Joseph put it in Baranwal, the CEC stands on a far higher pedestal in the constitutional scheme of things to uphold democracy and rule of law. This is precisely why the independence of CEC is significant and must be guarded against the abuse of executive power. Agreeing with this, Justice Chandrachud in ADR opined that though the Election Commission oversees the entire electoral process, it is not the sole duty of this body to secure the integrity of the process. A positive constitutional duty lies on all other organs of the government, including the legislature, executive and even judiciary to work towards the same goal. This is the only way the elected government is accountable to its people. Parliament violated this duty in ADR by authorising unrestrained influence of companies on the electoral process and disturbing political equality embodied in ‘one person one vote’.

The focus of all constitutional bodies is also from the voter’s perspective. This is the same reason political candidates are required to disclose their criminal antecedents and assets, or face disqualification due to electoral malpractice.

No undue influence

Another facet of these decisions is the Court’s emphasis to get rid of influence in elections. This includes both (i) influence of the ruling government in appointment of the Election Commission, and (ii) influence of anonymous and unlimited corporate funding on the political party and in turn on each individual vote. The reasons for both are also different. The independence of the Commission is material to eliminate any possibility that CEC feels obligated or indebted to the government that appointed it. An independent Commission is expected to ensure equal participation of voters, irrespective of gender and religion, and not be overshadowed by even a perception of bias in making decisions. Besides, a voter who has information about contributions made to political parties, prior to elections, is an informed voter and can cast a rational and intelligent vote. Their voting choice is based not only on the candidate but also the political party. It is important for them to know if the party they support is receiving money from companies and offering quid-pro-quo benefits to it. This enables an effective exercise of the right.

The court has consistently stressed the importance of fair and independent elections. By doing this and emphasising the significance of the Indian voters, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed their faith in democracy, especially when the country has a dominant government at the Centre seeking its third term, amidst a weak opposition. These rulings remind us that lawmakers must ensure that all their actions (or lack thereof) must encourage the active involvement of voters.