The discussion on electoral reforms in the Lok Sabha has mainly focused on two demands from the opposition; bringing back ballot paper voting instead of using EVMs, and ending the legal immunity given to Election Commissioners. Both points seem important for strengthening our election system. Many people in the country still do not fully trust EVM machines, and that doubt has not gone away. Also, there is no clear reason why Election Commissioners should continue to have legal protection even after they leave their job. Giving such special protection creates a fear in a democracy that the Election Commissioners are not as answerable to the Constitution and the law as other top officials. This problem can only be solved if we truly follow the principle of “everyone is equal before the law.”
Although, according to the Indian Constitution, no position, however high, is immune from scrutiny, and even the President can be impeached by Parliament. Similarly, Election Commissioners can also be impeached by Parliament, but granting them immunity from legal action after their service does not appear to be in the best interest of democracy. While the Election Commission is an independent and autonomous constitutional body, it is directly accountable to the people of the country, and the government has no direct involvement with it. Therefore, it becomes even more morally imperative that the Election Commission remains absolutely transparent and its commissioners are beyond reproach.
This issue is particularly serious because the Election Commission is the guardian of the most fundamental constitutional right granted to the citizens of the country: the right to one vote. For the sanctity of the right to vote, it is essential that the Election Commission remains impartial under all circumstances. The right to vote was not given to the citizens of India as a gift; rather, previous generations fought a long and arduous struggle for it during the freedom movement. Therefore, it is the paramount duty of the Election Commission to uphold the integrity of this right at all costs. It was due to the foresight of our constitution makers that an ‘independent’ Election Commission was established in independent India, thus proving that the real ruler of this country is the common citizen, whose single vote has the power to make and break governments. Mahatma Gandhi had decided to grant this right to vote as early as 1928, stating that it would be the greatest weapon in the hands of the citizens of India against the government, as it would truly transform India into a republic. However, in independent India today, this very right to vote is becoming a source of great controversy, with the opposition accusing the Election Commission of disenfranchising citizens under the pretext of the SIR (Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls) process. While there may be debate about the validity of the opposition’s allegations, it is undeniable that the Election Commission’s function is to include as many adult citizens as possible in the electoral process. It is also clear that only Indian citizens can be voters. If the Election Commission takes necessary steps in this regard, it cannot be dismissed outright. The only thing to ensure is that no legitimate Indian citizen is deprived of their right to vote. If the Election Commission has to relax its rules for this purpose, it should not be considered wrong. As far as EVM machines are concerned, their reliability has been questioned since 2009.
It would have been better if the then Manmohan Singh government had taken the necessary steps in this regard, as the then opposition party, the BJP, had demonstrably proven that the machines could be tampered with. However, the Congress party had achieved significant success in those elections and ignored this demand. One fact about these machines is clear: they act as a barrier or a third force between the voter and the electoral candidate, whereas according to India’s electoral law, the Representation of the People Act, 1951, there should be no visible or invisible third force between the voter and the electoral candidate. Lengthy debates have taken place on this matter in the Supreme Court of the country, but the outcome has not changed. Therefore, now is the right time to consider this matter seriously and amend the law in Parliament. The biggest problem is that the election results are determined through the EVM machines, while the results should be based directly on the votes cast by the voters. Even with the VVPAT system in place, when a voter casts their vote using the machine, they are not assured that their vote has gone to the candidate they intended to vote for, whereas they are completely satisfied after stamping a ballot paper. The machine cannot dispel this doubt from the voter’s mind because it acts as an intermediary. Its role as an intermediary is what gives rise to all the doubts. Therefore, to keep our democracy completely transparent and fair, we must make the necessary reforms. These reforms are only procedural, while we need to make comprehensive systemic reforms at a fundamental level.
