1

Role of the Election Commission of India in Strengthening Democracy in India

Dr. Nani Bath

Abstract

The paper understands how the Election Commission of India has been able to

nourish India’s democratic health over the years by improving the quality of election

management. When India adopted the path of democracy about fifty years ago, the

future of democracy was doubtful. The path to democracy was rough, as democratic

institutions in pre-independent India were not allowed to be functioned democratically.

The durability of democracy in India today and its people’s firm faith in the ballot very

often baffled sceptics. Competitive nature of election is an essential requirement for a

functioning democracy. The Constitution of India provides for periodic elections, which

ensure democratic transfer of political power from one set of representatives to other.

The Election Commission of India, a powerful non-partisan constitutional body,

conducts the largest electoral exercise in the world. It is the responsibility of the Election

Commission of India to organise free and fair election in this land of more than 670

million voters with diverse socio-political and economic backgrounds. In recent years,

the role being played by the Election Commission of India ensures greater participation

of people in political affairs. The Commission is also deeply concerned about

criminalization and communalization of politics.

Keywords: Democracy, Election of Commission, Model Code of Conduct,

Criminalization of Politics, Electoral Rolls.

2

Introduction

When Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru declared India as an independent democratic country

in his ‘Tryst with Destiny’ speech in the midnight of 14th August 1947, the whole world

looked at India in askance. In spite of Pt. Nehru’s strong belief in democratic norms, the

road to democracy in India was not smooth. The modern democratic institutions were not

allowed to be functioned effectively in British-India. The representative democracy, as

envisaged in the Constitution of India, was to be the new experience for majority of

Indians. Thus there were lots of apprehensions about the future of democracy in newly

independent India, which declared itself as ‘sovereign, democratic and republic’.

Democratic in the sense that a government is elected through free and competitive

elections based on adult suffrage.

India today is considered as the world’s ‘largest’ democratic country. The success

of democracy in India has attracted the attention of almost every political scientist around

the world. “Conventional wisdom has it that India is the world's largest democracy, but

few have recognized that it is so against the odds”1. The durability of democracy in India

and its people’s firm faith in the ballot very often baffled skeptics. Atul Kohli quotes an

editorial of the New York Times (October 8, 1999):

As 360 million Indians voted over the last month, the world’s largest and most

fractious democracy once again set a stirring example for all nations. . . India’s rich

diversity sometimes looks like an obstacle to unity. But the latest election has proved that

a commitment to resolving differences peacefully and democratically can transform

diversity into a source of strength.

3

The editorial, according to Kohli, points to a significant phenomenon: “for more

than five decades India’s democracy has succeed against considerable odds”2. Many

factors seem to have contributed to the success of democracy in India over the last fifty

years. Periodic national and assembly elections, under the supervision of Election

Commission of India, are a strong indicator of the success of a functioning democracy.

“Over the past 50 years,” Manoranjan Mohanty writes, “the elections have been by and

large free and fair. There has been peaceful transfer of power from one political party to

another. This is a crucial test for the functioning of liberal democracy”3. Atul Kohli’s

idea about India’s successful democracy also emanates from the success of periodic

elections “in which all political offices are contested, and in which all adults are qualified

to vote”4. “Democratic institutions and practices came to be more firmly rooted in Indian

politics in the era of periodical elections based on adult franchise” writes Rajendra Vora

and Suhas Pulsikar adding that “Democracy has evolved in independent India basically

through representative politics, mobilization of masses and power-sharing”5.

Elections and Democracy in India

Democracy rests on the will of the ‘demos’. These wills are manifested more

effectively at the time when representatives of the people are selected or elected. In a

representative type of democracy, wills of the demos are temporarily transferred to their

representatives for a specific period of time, with the consent of the demos. Montesquieu

wrote in 1748 that since it was not possible in a large state for the people to meet as a

legislative body, they must choose representatives to do what they could not do

themselves6. The representatives (to whom power is to be transferred) are selected by

holding regular elections. A democratic political system must accept no other authority

than the will of the people and their freely given consent as the basis of governance. It is

4

this freely given consent on certain intervals through elections that legitimizes the

political system. Modern representative democracy, therefore, would not be possible

without periodic elections. In fact, the very idea of representative system cannot be

conceived without regular elections.

The authors of Democracy in Asia maintain that democracy denotes a system that

meets three essential conditions. One of the conditions they cite is “a highly inclusive

level of political participation in the selection of leaders and policies, at least through

regular and free elections, such that no major (adult) social group is excluded”7.

Competitive nature of elections is identified as one of the major requirements for

functioning democracy by Myron Weiner in his ‘Empirical Democratic Theory’8.

Elections create a sentiment of popular consent and participation in public affairs and

provide for orderly succession in government by peaceful transfer of authority to new

rulers9. “The constitution of a country”, says R.P.Bhalla, “has been called the vehicle of

a nation’s life”. According to him the election is the process by which the people choose

the instrument of government to conduct the nation’s life10.

In a democratic system power originates from the people. It is in this context that

the Lok Sabha Speaker, Somnath Chatterjee says, “... democracy rests on the belief that

the people are the source as well as the purpose of power in the polity. It is their consent

expressed periodically through elections, either directly or indirectly legitimizes the

decision-making process”. He adds, “Through elections, we undertake the task of

translating the consent of the people into the authority to govern. They are also an

opportunity to test a country’s health in terms of progress and development”11. The

significance of elections in democracy is equally emphasized by T.N. Seshan, the former

Chief Election Commissioner of India when he writes, “The only way in which you can

establish democracy by the will of the people is by the conduct of a free and fair

5

election”12. The successful working of formal democracy, according to Ramashray Roy,

depends on a set of three basic conditions:

First, the mandate for governance must come from the people and must be given

freely. Secondly, political leaders and activists must agree on the democratic rules of the

games and compete among themselves for capturing political power… And, lastly, there

must exist a general acceptance of norms as well as institutional structure that will

enable competing political parties to maintain and preserve democracy13.

The Election Commission of India

Election Commission of India is a permanent Constitutional Body, which was

established in accordance with the Constitution on 25th January 1950. The Commission

conducts elections in accordance with the constitutional provisions, supplemented by

laws made by Parliament. The major laws include Representation of the People Act,

1950, which mainly deals with the preparation and revision of electoral rolls, the

Representation of the People Act, 1951 which deals, in detail, with all aspects of conduct

of elections and post election disputes.

The founding fathers of the Constitution of India gave the Indians a Constitution

that envisages independent, neutral and apolitical institutions whose functioning, they

visualized would ensure the preservation of the democratic character of the nation. The

Election Commission of India was one of these institutions mandated to conduct free and

fair elections in the country. The Constituent Assembly was concerned about the

inclusiveness of all eligible groups particularly the weaker sections of the society. Hence,

the necessity was felt for an independent constitutional authority to establish the principle

of equality which argues that all citizens eligible to be on the rolls should be given the

6

opportunity to exercise their franchise. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar sought for the inclusion of

such groups based on the principle of equality14. Participating in the Constitutional

Assembly Debates, Dr. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, said:

It has been brought to the notice both of the drafting committee as well as Central

Government that in these provinces the executive government is instructing or managing

things in such a manner that those people who do not belong to them either racially,

culturally or linguistically, are being excluded from being brought on the electoral rolls.

The house will realize that franchise is a most fundamental thing in a democracy. No

person who is entitled to be brought into the electoral rolls on grounds which we have

already mentioned in our constitution, namely, an adult of 21 years of age should be

excluded merely as a result of the prejudice of a local government, or whim of an officer.

That would cut at the very root of democratic government.

The Constituent Assembly was faced with a dilemma: whether to have a

centralized Election Commission or to allow the states to have their own separate

Election Commissions. After a long debate it was finally decided to accept a unified

election authority for the whole country to ensure uniformity of the election procedure

and practice. The result was Article 324 in the Constitution of India, replacing Article

289 under Constituent Assembly Debates. Article 324(1) provides that the

superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the

conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of

elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held under this Constitution shall

be vested in a Commission, the Election Commission. Clause (2) of Article 324 says that

the Election Commission shall consist of the Chief Election Commissioner, and any

number of other Election Commissioners, as the President may from time to time

appoint. Till the appointment of two additional members to the Election Commission by

7

an Ordinance15 of the Government in 1993, the Commission consisted of only the Chief

Election Commissioner. Since 1993 the concept of multi-member Commission has been

in operation, with decision making power by majority vote. The Rajiv Gandhi

Government had also appointed in 1989 a multi-member Election Commission by

including two additional members of the Election Commission. It was reverted to one-

man Election Commission by the V.P. Singh Government in 199116. At present the

Chief Election Commissioner is assisted in his functions by the two Election

Commissioners, three Deputy Election Commissioners, and six Secretaries.

The Constitution does not prescribe any qualification for the Chief Election

Commissioner or the Election Commissioners. The main concern of the makers of the

Constitution was to have an Election Commission, independent of executive and political

control. The President as per Article 324(2) appoints the Chief Election Commissioner

and other Election Commissioners. They have tenure of six years, or up to the age of 65

years, whichever is earlier. Since in a Parliamentary democracy the President functions

on the advice of the Prime Minister, the actual power of appointment is with the latter.

The independence of Election Commission in carrying out its functions and

responsibilities is ensured by an express provision in Article 324(5) of the Constitution. It

says that the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his office except in

like manner, and on the like grounds, as a Judge of the Supreme Court and the conditions

of the service of the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be varied to his disadvantage

during his tenure. It means that the Chief Election Commissioner can be removed from

office only through impeachment by Parliament. They enjoy the same status and receive

salary and perks as available to Judges of the Supreme Court of India.

8

Election Commission and the Success of Democracy in India

The Constitution of India provides for periodic elections, which ensure

democratic transfer of political power from one set of representative to other. The

Election Commission of India, a powerful non-partisan constitutional body, conducts the

largest electoral exercise in the world. It is the responsibility of the Election Commission

of India to conduct free and fair election in this land of more than 670 million voters with

diverse socio-economic and political backgrounds.

The Election Commission of India has been successfully conducting national as

well as state elections since 1952. In recent years, however, the Commission has started

to play more active role to ensure greater participation of people in the political affairs.

Late K.R. Narayanan, the former President of India praising the pro-active role of

Election Commission said:

The Commission very quickly adapted itself to the changed political milieu that

came about in the country. From a relatively passive role that it had played in the earlier

years following our independence, it quickly responded and centre stage to play a

vigorous, proactive role to ensure that the democratic process in the country remains, as

was envisaged by all at the time of Independence, free and fair in both character and

content17.

The Prime Minister of India proudly declares that the Election Commission of

India has no equals anywhere in the world. To quote him,

When the United Nations and the Governments of other democracies reach out to

our Election Commission seeking its assistance in conducting elections we feel a sense of

pride in our democratic processes and institutions. Our Election Commission has no

peers anywhere in the world. It has established an enviable record of efficiency and

transparency in the conduct of elections from Kashmir to Kanyamumari18.

9

The Election Commission and the Supreme Court are the two institutions that

command high degree of respect from the citizens19. Rudolf and Rudolf maintain that

“the Election commission joined the Supreme Court in improving the legal conditions

that make representative government and democratic participation possible”. According

to them Election Commission has also contributed to the making of a regulatory state in

India20. Election Commission’s role in the success of India’s Democracy is reflected in

the writings of a political scientist, who says, “The Election Commission is the means to

the end of a vibrant representative democracy”21.

The Commission in the past was considered as a wing of the administration to

complete the formalities of the election22. A new dynamism was instilled in the

Commission after T.N. Sheshan took over as the Chief Election Commissioner in 1991.

”Starting with the tenure of T.N. Sheshan as Chief Election Commissioner........ the

Election Commission gained a national prominence as a prime force in restoring and

maintaining free and fair elections in India”23. T.N. Seshan gave teeth to electoral

provisions and a model code of conduct was made to operate with great firmness,

showing the “hitherto undiscovered and untapped power of the Commission hidden in the

Constitution”24. The Commission since then has initiated various electoral reform

measures. It is deeply concerned about criminalization of politics and participation of

criminals in the electoral process as candidates. The Commission had gone to the extent

of disciplining the political parties with a threat of de recognition if the parties failed in

maintaining inner party democracy.

Election Commission and the Preparation of Electoral Rolls

To maintain an accurate and up-to-date record of all eligible voters is the essential

prerequisite of every functioning democracy, without which no free and fair election can

10

be possible. The electoral rolls being the determinate of whose votes shall form the

government are the foundation of modern democracy.

As mandated by Article 324 of the Constitution and Representation of People’s

Acts, the primary function of the Election Commission is to superintend, direct and

control the preparation of Electoral Rolls. Thus, Electoral Rolls of every Constituency, as

desired by the Constitution makers, is prepared under the superintendence, direction and

control of the Election Commission. The Commission plays an ‘activist’s role’ to root out

the bogus voters and enlist the genuine ones as it knows that more than two per cent error

makes voter lists unacceptable. In the recent election to the Legislative Assembly of West

Bengal the Commission considered the task of cleaning the electoral rolls as a “high

priority” job. The names of 13 lakh “dead and shifted” voters have been removed and 21

lakh new voters added to the list25.

The Commission has also taken bold initiative to ensure deletion of names of

those voters against whom non-bailable warrants have been pending execution for over

six months. It considers that if a warrant cannot be executed for more than six months, it

should be presumed that the person is no longer residing in that place and so his name

should not figure in the voters’ list. Based on a communication from the Election

Commission, controversial RJD MP from Siwan (Bihar) Mohamad Shahabuddin’s name

was deleted from the voters’ list in 200526. In total 1.5 lakhs names were deleted from the

voters’ list in Bihar alone27.

In order to protect the genuine voters, the Commission has been insisting since

1993 on photo identity cards to be issued to all eligible voters. The former CEC, T.N.

Sheshan issued a warning by invoking Rule 37 of Representation of People’s Act that the

Commission would not notify elections after January 1, 1995 in those places where photo

identity cards were not issued. The CEC’s dictate of ‘no identity cards-no elections’

11

became slightly controversial. The order of the Commission was challenged in the

Supreme Court saying that right to vote is an essential component of democracy and

procedural provision cannot be constructed to deny the substantive right to vote.The

matter was finally resolved when the Commission gave an undertaking before the Court

that it would not withhold elections. The present Chief Election Commissioner is also

insistence on photo identity cards. B.B. tendon made it clear before the recent Assembly

election in West Bengal, Assam and Tamil Nadu that “those without photo identity cards

will not be allowed to cast their votes in Assembly election”28.

Election Commission and Model Code of Conduct

Model code of Conduct emerged out of a political consensus when in 1968 the

Election Commission formulated, in consultation with political parties, the code that was

intended to regulate the conduct of political parties and candidates for a healthy and

peaceful election campaign. Election Commission of India defines Model code of

Conduct as a set of guidelines to govern the conduct of political parties and candidates in

the run-up to an election. It is intended to provide a level playing field for all political

parties, to keep the campaign fair and healthy, avoid clashes and conflicts between

parties, and ensure peace and order. The main aim of the Model Code is to ensure that the

ruling party, either at the Centre or in the states, does not misuse its official position to

gain an unfair advantage in an election. Unfortunately the code of conduct does not have

statutory sanction.

It was T.N. Sheshan who strictly enforced the code after taking over as the Chief

Election Commissioner. Before that the code remained just on paper as the Commission

did not realise that it had the power to enforce the code. T.N Sheshan forced the parties

and candidates to take the EC’s code of conduct seriously and succeeded to a good extent

12

in containing violence. Rudolph and Rudolph say that the most visible success of the

Election Commission “has been getting India’s parties and candidates ……… comply

with its code of conduct”29.

The Sheshan’s tradition continued and the successive Election Commissioners

took serious note of any violation of the code. The present Commission has pulled up a

host of politicians, bureaucrats and even a Governor for violating the code. Governor of

Bihar, Buta Singh Singh was indicted by a two-member Election Commission team for

violating model code of conduct as he made various appointments to constitutional

bodies prior to Assembly election in Bihar in 200530. Human Resource Development

Minister Arjun Singh’s recent announcement about the government’s plans for

reservation in elite educational institutions for Other Backward Classes was found to be a

volatile of the model code of conduct. The Commission said this "amounts to new

concessions to certain sections of the electorate” in the five states where Assembly

elections are being held31. R. Natraj, the then Chennai Police Commissioner was ordered

to be transferred by the Election Commission in the wake of his praising Tamil Nadu

Chief Minister when the model code of conduct was in force32.

Election Commission on Criminalization of Politics

Criminalization of politics and politicization of crime very badly affect social and

political life of the people. Presence of criminals in politics, many believe, stands on the

way of democracy in India. The National Commission to Review the Working of the

Constitution (NCRWC) has also recognised the fact that criminalisation has become a

worrisome characteristic of India's politics and electoral system. The Commission notes

that one possible explanation for the rapid criminalisation of the polity is that criminals

13

have understood the mechanics of the electoral process and have themselves become

contenders for power. Earlier, politicians used to patronise criminals and provided them

protection from the law-enforcement agencies in exchange for the use of their muscle

power during elections. Quoting unofficial studies the National Commission cited that in

1996 as many as 39 members of parliament, including four ministers, faced criminal

charges, which included murder, rape, dacoity, abduction, assault and breach of peace.

An investigation into the record of 500 persons who were candidates in the Lok Sabha

elections of 1998 revealed that 72 of them had criminal proceedings pending against

them33.

As per the estimate of G.V.G. Krishnamurthy, the former CEC some 700 of the

4000 odd MLAs in the country are “history-shetters” or had been charged in criminal

cases34. The former Chief Election Commissioner, G.V.G. Krishnamurthy, strongly

pleaded for a new legislation to arrest criminalization of politics and political corruption

with an aim that “no law breaker should ever be law maker”35. The Committee to Review

the Working of the Constitution has recommended that candidates convicted of offences

with a sentence of six months or more be barred from contesting elections for six years

plus the length of their sentence, which would mark a change from the existing system

where a six year ban might expire before a seven or eight year sentence36.

The Election Commission taking serious view of the increasing role of criminals

in politics gave criminal un-friendly interpretation to Section 8 of Representation of

People Act, 1951. The Commission ordered that no convicted person will be allowed to

contest elections even if an appeal against the conviction was pending in a high court or

the person was on bail. The exception was, however, given to sitting members of

Parliament and State Legislatures. Accordingly, the Commission directed the returning

14

officers to obtain sworn affidavits from candidates detailing whether the contestant had

ever been convicted, nature of offence, punishment imposed, period of imprisonment and

other relevant details. The returning officers were ordered to take note of the new legal

position and decide about the validity of the candidature of contestants37.

The Commission also recommended that when a person is accused of serious

crimes and a court is prima facia satisfied about his involvement in the crime, he should

be kept out of the electoral arena as it would be a reasonable restriction in the interest of

the public. And those accused of criminal offences carrying a sentence of five years or

more be automatically disqualified from fighting elections.

Election Commission on Inner Party Democracy

It is often said that “the strength of India’s parliamentary democracy is rooted in

its multi-party system and the manner in which the political parties work”38. The

centrality of the parties in a democratic system demands that some policing of their

internal process of selecting leaders and representatives should definitely take place

which will ensure that the exercise of authority within the party is based on a democratic

culture and not an authoritarian one39.

India being a democratic country it is only expected that the Political Parties must

function in a democratic manner. Political parties are registered with the Election

Commission under Section 29A of Representation of People Act, 1951.The registered

political parties are granted recognition at the State and National levels by the Election

Commission on the basis of their poll performance at general elections according to

criteria prescribed by it. Although the Act of 1951 does not specifically mention about

the power of the Commission to impose directives for the purpose of establishing inner

15

party democracy of the political parties, the successive Election Commissioners have

shown interests to restrict parties from moving away from democratic path. Since parties

are so central to the democratic system some policing of their internal process of

selecting leaders and representatives should definitely take place. This ensures that the

exercise of authority within the party is based on a democratic culture and not an

authoritarian one40.

The former CEC, T.N. Sheshan ordered in 1994 that political parties which had not

constituted governing bodies according to their constitution would be derecognized. Later, he

realized that the Parliament has not given the EC any power to scrutinize a party's

constitution. The Commission, under M.S. Gill issued a direction to all those parties which

conduct their internal business in “an entirely undemocratic manner” to ensure that the

organisational elections are held regularly as per the party constitution. He, however, ruled

out any “interference” by the commission in the internal political process of parties41. J.M.

Lyngdoh, the former Chief Election Commissioner agrees that a constitutional amendment

that would make political parties adopt inner-party democracy could be one of the ways to

ensure the effective functioning of democracy in the country42.

More need to be done

At the end, it must be acknowledged that the Election Commission of India has

been greatly responsible for the survival of Indian democracy. No democracy can said to

be complete without periodic elections, which in India is made possible because of active

role being played by the Election Commission. It remains one of the few constitutional

bodies to have realized the dreams and visions of the founding fathers of Indian

Constitution. The role of the Commission in recent years has often been perceived as

16

renewed “activism”. The Assembly elections in Bihar last year is seen as the fairest

election held so far in the country. The Election Commission and its special observer K.J.

Rao has created conditions for the Dalits and the poor to vote freely and without fear43.

The main concern of the Commission before Legislative Assembly election in West

Bengal was to get to the bottom of “scientific rigging by Left Front”44.

However, the Election Commission still have long way to go. K.J. Rao agrees that

more is needed to be done45. He is in favour of creation of a special cadre of officer for

the Election Commission. The former CEC, M.S. Gill believed that the Commission must

“assert its constitutionally guaranteed independence more fiercely than ever” if India is

going to hold free and fair elections46. Government of India has to act urgently on the 44

recommendations for poll reforms by the Election Commission so that the Commission is

equipped to cleanse Indian polity of criminals and corrupt politicians. The Commission

should not only be neutral but also seems to be neutral. The recent controversy, in which

a Member of the Commission was reported to have received donations from several

Congress politicians for trusts with which his family has links, does not add to the

reputation of highly respected constitutional body. In order to avoid such incidents, the

members of the Commission as well as Chief Commissioner should be appointed without

political considerations.

17

End notes

1 Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber (2002). "New Dimensions in Indian Democracy,” Journal of

Democracy 13(1):52-66.

2 Kohli, Atul (ed.) (2001). The Success of India’s Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, p.1.

3 Mohanty, Manoranjan (2004). “Theorizing Indian Democracy,” in Indian Democracy-

Meaning and Practices, Rajendra Vora and Suhas Pulsikar (eds). New Delhi: Sage

Publications, p. 107.

4 Kohli, Atul, op. cit.

5 Vora, Rajendra, Suhas Pulsikar (eds.) (2004). Indian Democracy - Meanings and

Practices. New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 24-27.

6 Dahl, Robert (1989). Democracy and Its Critics. New Delhi: Orient Longman, p. 29.

7 Larry Diamond, Juan J Linz, S.M. Lipset (eds.) (1989). Democracy in Asia. New Delhi:

Vistaar Publications, p. 29.

8 Weiner, Myron (1987). ‘‘Empirical Democratic Theory,” in M. Weiner and Ergun

Ozbudun, (eds.) Competitive Elections in Developing Countries. Durham, NC: Duke

University Press, P. 4.

9 Mackenzie, W.J.M. (1958). Free Elections. London: George Allen and Unwin, pp.13-

14.

10 Swaminathan, T., former Chief Election Commissioner of India wrote in his Foreword

to R.P. Bhalla’s (1973) Elections in India (1950-1972). New Delhi: Sultan Chand and

Sons.

11 Address in a Conference of Commonwealth Chief Election Officers, New Delhi, 24-

26 February 2005.

12 Sheshan, T.N. (1995). A Heart Full of Burden. New Delhi: UBS, p. 130.

18

13 Roy, Ramashray (1971). “Elections, Electorate and Democracy in India,” Indian

Journal of Public Administration (Perspective), October-December: p. 19.

14 De Souza, Peter (1998) “The E.C. and Electoral Reforms in India”, in D.D. Khanna,

L.L. Mehrotra and Gert W. Kueck (eds.) Democracy, Diversity and Stability. Delhi:

Macmillan, p. 53.

15 The Ordinance amended the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election

Commissioners (Condition of Services) Act, 1991.

16 Bhambri, C.P (1994). Indian Politics Since Independence. Delhi: Shipra, p.396.

17 Speech of the President of India on the occasion of the Golden Jubilee Celebration of

the Election Commission of India on January 17, 2001.

18 Prime Minister Dr. Monmohan Singh’s Speech at the HT Leadership Initiative

Conference, New Delhi.

19 A nationwide survey was conducted by the Centre for the Study of Developing

Societies for the Indian Council of Social Sciences Research and India today just after

the eleventh national election in June and July 1996. The survey finds that 62 per cent

of 15,030 respondents rated the Election Commission as trustworthy, the highest score,

followed by 59 per cent for the Supreme Court. India Today, August 31, 1996.

20 Rudolph, Lyoyd and Susanne Rudolph (2001) “Redoing the Constitutional Design”, in,

Atul Kohli (ed.) The Success of India’s democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, pp. 154-155.

21 Peter, op. cit., p. 53.

22 Roy, A.K.(1999). “Role of Election Commission in Ensuring Fair Polls,” Economic

and Political Weekly, September: p. 2633.

23 Rudolph and Rudolf, op.cit., p.155.

24 Roy, A.K., op. cit.

19

25 B.B. Tandon, Chief Election Commissioner of India, Times of India, 21.3.06.

26 Times of India, New Delhi, November 10, 2005.

27 Telegraph, Calcutta, December 15, 2005.

28 Times of India, New Delhi, December 8, 2005.

29 Rudolph and Rudolph, op. cit., p. 157.

30 Ibid.

31 Times of India, New Delhi, April 8, 2006.

32 Statesman, Calcutta, April 21, 2006.

33 Hindu, vol.18-issue 26, Dec.22, 2001-Jan.04, 2002.

34 Times of India, New Delhi, August 28, 1997.

35 Hindustan Times, New Delhi, August 22, 1997.

36 Wilkinson, Steven (2001) “Cleansing Political Institution,” Seminar 506: October.

37 Order of the Election Commission of India No. 509/Disqln.?97-J.S.I, dated 28th

August, 1997.

38 Prakash, Prem (2006). The Tribune, Chandigarh, 22, Jan.

39 D Souza, Peter (2001). Whose Representative? Seminar 506: October.

40 Ibid.

41 Tribune, Chandigarh, November 3, 2000.

42 Hindu, New Delhi, December 12, 2004.

43 Hindu, New Delhi, November 3, 2005. K.J. Rao was appointed as the special observer

by the Election Commission to oversee elections in Jammu and Kashmir and Bihar.

44 Times of India, New Delhi, March 2, 2006.

45 Telegraph, Calcutta, November 22, 2005.

46 Rudolph and Rudolph,op.cit., p. 159.

20

References

Bhambri, C.P (1994). Indian Politics Since Independence. Delhi: Shipra.

Dahl, Robert (1989). Democracy and Its Critics. New Delhi: Orient Longman.

De Souza, Peter (1998) “The E.C. and Electoral Reforms in India”, in D.D. Khanna, L.L.

Mehrotra and Gert W. Kueck (eds.) Democracy, Diversity and Stability. Delhi:

Macmillan: 51-63.

Kohli, Atul (ed.) (2001). The Success of India’s Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Larry Diamond, Juan J Linz, S.M. Lipset (eds.) (1989). Democracy in Asia. New Delhi:

Vistaar Publications.

Mackenzie, W.J.M. (1958). Free Elections. London: George Allen and Unwin.

Mohanty, Manoranjan (2004). “Theorizing Indian Democracy,” in Indian Democracy-

Meaning and Practices, Rajendra Vora and Suhas Pulsikar (eds.). New Delhi:

Sage Publication.

Roy, A.K. (1999). “Role of Election Commission in Ensuring Fair Polls,” Economic and

Political Weekly, September: 2633-2634.

Roy, Ramashray (1971). “Elections, Electorate and Democracy in India,” Indian Journal

of Public Administration (Perspective), October-December: 18-21.

Rudolph, Lyoyd and Susanne Rudolph (2001) “Redoing the Constitutional Design”, in,

Atul Kohli (ed.) The Success of India’s democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press: 127-162.

Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber (2002). "New Dimensions in Indian Democracy,” Journal of

Democracy 13(1):52-66.

21

Seminar (English Journal) (2001). “Reforming Politics,” 506: October.

Sheshan, T.N. (1995). A Heart Full of Burden. New Delhi: UBS.

R.P. Bhalla’s (1973) Elections in India (1950-1972). New Delhi: Sultan Chand and Sons.

Vora, Rajendra, Suhas Pulsikar (eds.) (2004). Indian Democracy - Meanings and

Practices. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Weiner, Myron (1987). ‘‘Empirical Democratic Theory,” in M. Weiner and Ergun

Ozbudun, (eds.) Competitive Elections in Developing Countries. Durham NC: Duke

University Press, P. 3-12.

Dr. Bath teaches in the Department of Political Science, Rajiv Gandhi University (formerly Arunachal University), Arunachal Pradesh (India).