Electoral Reforms in India: EVMs, NOTA, State Funding & Key Committees

Electoral reforms in India refer to the changes in laws, processes, and institutions governing elections — from voter registration and campaign financing to voting technology and candidate eligibility. India has conducted 18 general elections since 1951-52, and every cycle has exposed new vulnerabilities that demanded reform.

I've watched students lose marks on this topic by listing reforms without understanding the problem each reform was designed to solve. Every reform is a response to a specific failure. Know the failure, and the reform makes sense.

UPSC has tested electoral reforms in Mains GS-II in 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2023. Prelims questions on EVMs, NOTA, and Article 324 appear regularly. The One Nation One Election debate (Kovind Committee 2024) is a near-certain question for upcoming cycles.

Evolution of Electoral Reforms: 1950-2025

India's electoral reform journey tracks three distinct phases:

Phase 1 (1950-1989): Institutional foundation. The Election Commission of India was established under Article 324 as a single-member body. T.N. Seshan’s tenure (1990-96) transformed it from a passive regulator into an assertive institution. The 61st Amendment Act (1989) lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 years. The Anti-Defection Law was enacted in 1985 via the 52nd Amendment.

Phase 2 (1990-2010): Technology and transparency. EVMs were introduced, voter ID cards became mandatory, and the Supreme Court began forcing disclosure of criminal records and assets.

Phase 3 (2011-present): Judicial activism and structural debates. NOTA, VVPAT, electoral bonds (introduced 2018, struck down 2024), and One Nation One Election dominate this phase.

Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and VVPAT

EVMs were first used in 1982 in the Paravur Assembly constituency in Kerala (50 booths). After extensive trials, they were used in all constituencies for the first time in the 2004 general elections.

Technical facts you need:

• EVMs are standalone devices with no internet connectivity, Wi-Fi, or Bluetooth
• Each EVM can record a maximum of 2,000 votes and accommodate up to 16 candidates (with linked ballot units, up to 384)
• The EVM consists of two units: the Control Unit (with the presiding officer) and the Ballot Unit (in the voting compartment)
• EVMs are manufactured by Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) and Electronics Corporation of India Limited (ECIL) — both government companies

VVPAT (Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail) was introduced following the Supreme Court’s 2013 directive in Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India. VVPAT allows voters to verify that their vote was recorded correctly by displaying a printed slip for 7 seconds before it drops into a sealed box.

VVPAT was used universally from the 2019 general elections. The Supreme Court in 2019 directed that VVPAT slips from 5 randomly selected booths per constituency be matched with EVM counts. In the 2024 elections, this protocol continued.

Common student mistake: Writing that VVPAT "proves" EVMs are tamper-proof. VVPAT is a verification mechanism, not a guarantee. The debate over 100% VVPAT counting vs. sample counting remains alive. Courts have consistently upheld sample verification as sufficient.

NOTA: None of the Above

NOTA was introduced following the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in PUCL v. Union of India (2013). The Court held that the right to reject all candidates is part of the right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to vote under Article 326.

Key facts:

• NOTA has no legal consequence. Even if NOTA receives the highest votes in a constituency, the candidate with the most votes among actual candidates wins
• In the 2024 general elections, approximately 0.99% of total votes were cast as NOTA
• Maharashtra recorded the highest NOTA votes in the 2024 elections
• Several petitions demanding that NOTA-majority results trigger re-elections have been dismissed by courts

UPSC angle: NOTA is a negative right — a right to express dissatisfaction — without a positive outcome. The Law Commission's 170th Report (1999) and the 255th Report (2015) recommended giving NOTA legal teeth by mandating fresh elections if NOTA wins. This remains unimplemented.

For how fundamental freedoms intersect with voting rights, see Fundamental Rights.

State Funding of Elections

State funding of elections is the most frequently discussed and least implemented reform in Indian electoral history.

Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998): Recommended partial state funding — free supply of certain items (fuel, paper, microphones) to recognized national and state parties. Recommended only as a first step, conditional on internal democracy within parties and transparent accounting.

Law Commission's 170th Report (1999): Supported state funding but said it was "desirable" only if political parties maintained transparent accounts, were subject to audit, and had internal democratic structures. None of these preconditions have been met.

National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC, 2002): Endorsed state funding but echoed the same preconditions.

Electoral Bonds (2018-2024): Introduced as an alternative to state funding, electoral bonds allowed anonymous donations to political parties. The Supreme Court struck them down on February 15, 2024 in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, holding that anonymous donations violated the right to information under Article 19(1)(a). The SBI was directed to disclose all bond data to the Election Commission.

Key data from disclosed bonds: Between 2019 and 2024, electoral bonds worth approximately Rs 16,518 crore were purchased. The ruling BJP received about 47% of total bond value.

Criminalisation of Politics

This is where the data tells a damning story.

ADR (Association for Democratic Reforms) analysis of the 2024 Lok Sabha:

• 43% of elected MPs (251 out of 543) had declared criminal cases against them
• 25% had serious criminal cases — murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, crimes against women
• This is an increase from 43% in 2019 and 34% in 2014 — the trend is rising, not falling

Vohra Committee (1993): Documented the nexus between criminals, politicians, and bureaucrats. Its report remains partially classified. The committee found that criminal gangs enjoyed political patronage and protection, and that this nexus was "virtually running a parallel government."

Supreme Court interventions:

• 2002: Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms — mandatory disclosure of criminal background, assets, and educational qualifications by candidates
• 2005: Ramesh Dalal v. Union of India — sitting MPs/MLAs convicted and sentenced to 2+ years are immediately disqualified (Section 8(3) of RPA, 1951, as modified)
• 2018: Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India — parties must publicize criminal records of candidates on websites and in newspapers, giving reasons for selecting candidates with criminal backgrounds
• 2020: Court directed parties to upload compliance reports within 72 hours of candidate selection

Despite repeated judicial directions, the percentage of candidates with criminal records keeps rising. The problem is structural — candidates with criminal backgrounds often have higher "winnability" due to money and muscle power.

For how the judiciary has intervened in governance, see Supreme Court of India.

One Nation One Election

The High-Level Committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind submitted its report in March 2024, recommending simultaneous elections to Lok Sabha and all State Assemblies.

Key recommendations:

• Amend Article 82A (proposed) to synchronize election cycles
• Use a Single Electoral Roll prepared by the Election Commission for all elections (currently, some states maintain separate rolls)
• Conduct elections in two phases — Lok Sabha + State Assemblies together, then municipal and panchayat elections within 100 days
• Amendments to Articles 83, 85, 172, 174, and 356 would be required

Arguments for: Reduces election expenditure (estimated Rs 4,500 crore for 2024 general elections alone), limits enforcement of Model Code of Conduct that freezes governance, and reduces voter fatigue.

Arguments against: Undermines federalism by merging state and national mandates, requires constitutional amendments ratifiable by half the state legislatures, and creates problems when governments fall mid-term (premature dissolution or President's Rule).

The Law Commission's working paper (2018) supported simultaneous elections as feasible with adequate constitutional amendments. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice has also examined this question.

Other Key Electoral Reforms

Model Code of Conduct (MCC): Voluntary code enforced by the EC since 1968, made rigorous from the 1990s. It has no statutory backing — enforcement relies entirely on EC's authority under Article 324.

Paid News: The EC now treats paid news as a corrupt practice. In 2019, the EC identified over 700 cases of paid news across states. The Press Council and EC jointly monitor this.

Social Media Regulation: The EC issued guidelines requiring political advertisements on social media to carry pre-certification. In the 2024 elections, deepfake videos and AI-generated content emerged as new challenges. The EC has sought legal provisions to regulate AI in campaigns.

Right to Recall: Not yet implemented in India, though recommended by multiple reform committees. Some Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj legislation has experimented with recall provisions at the local level.

Table: Major Electoral Reform Milestones

UPSC Relevance

Prelims: Article 324-329, NOTA judgment (PUCL 2013), EVM introduction year (1982/2004), Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998), composition of EC.

Mains GS-II: "Examine the electoral reforms needed to address the criminalisation of Indian politics." Use ADR data, Supreme Court judgments, Vohra Committee findings. Also: "Discuss the feasibility of One Nation One Election in the Indian federal context."

Essay: Electoral reforms connect to democratic legitimacy, institutional trust, and federal balance. Use specific numbers and committee names — not vague references to "various committees."

PDF