Role Of Judiciary In Ensuring Free And Fair Election In India

The Indian judiciary plays an important role in ensuring free and fair elections. This is primarily by safeguarding the independence of the Election Commission, upholding the Constitution, adjudicating election disputes, and preventing electoral malpractices. The judiciary, in various judgments, has tried to shape electoral laws and practices, resulting in greater transparency, accountability, and empowerment for voters. This article will look into the various ways the Indian judiciary has contributed to shaping fair and free elections in the country.

The judiciary acts as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, ensuring that the electoral process adheres to its fundamental principles, especially those enshrined in Article 324, which vests the power of superintendence, direction, and control of elections in the Election Commission of India (ECI).

Through the case T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995), The Court recognized the ECI's authority to issue directions to ensure free and fair elections, even in areas not explicitly covered by statutory law, as long as they are consistent with the constitutional mandate. This judgment has strengthened the ECI to pursue electoral reforms.

An important contribution of the judiciary in fair and free elections is ensuring Independence of the ECI.In Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023), the court observed that if ECI is protected from executive influence, it will enhance its power to conduct free and fair elections. An appointment process which is more independent and transparent will serve the purpose.

The judiciary resolve electoral disputes, particularly when it comes to corrupt practices or irregularities and to protect the will of the voters. Judiciary is playing an important role in ensuring fair and free elections by intervening in cases of Booth capturing, misuse of government machinery, and vote-buying etc., which are hindrance to the fair and free elections.

In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) The Supreme Court observed that the right to free and fair election is a crucial part of the basic structure of the constitution.  

The judiciary through various judgments highlighted the necessity for electoral reforms to address legislative gaps and interpreted existing laws to promote transparency and accountability. 

In the case Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) (2002), The Supreme Court declared that knowing about the antecedents of candidates is a fundamental right of voters and directed the ECI to collect and disseminate it. It is evident that the right to information of voters is a vital component in order to ensure the conduct of truly free and fair elections in India.

The Supreme Court, in the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2013) introduced the option "None of the Above" (NOTA) on Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). The Court held that it is implicit in right to vote, the right not to vote, and the NOTA option is the expression of voters their disapproval of all contesting candidates.

In addition to this, our judiciary has significantly contributed to the decriminalization of politics. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013), The Supreme Court declared that a MP or MLA should be disqualified from holding office immediately even though pendency of appeal, if he is convicted of a crime punishable with imprisonment for two years or more. This has helped to curb the entry of criminals into legislative bodies. 

Another instance where the judiciary tried to decriminalize politics is Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018), where the Supreme Court directed political parties to publish details of pending criminal cases against their candidates on their websites, as well as in newspapers and on social media, giving reasons for fielding such candidates. This will enhance voter’s awareness and put pressure on parties to have a good background.

The Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India (2013) declared VVPAT an "indispensable requirement of free and fair election" and directed the ECI to implement it. This has enhanced the verifiability and auditability of electronic voting, and increased public confidence in EVMs.

In Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) v. Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court declared the Electoral Bond Scheme (allowed anonymous donations to political parties) as unconstitutional and struck down. As it violated the voters' right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This has created obstruction in the transparency of political funding and increased the chance of something for some arrangements. This was an important step to promote fairness and transparency in election funding. 

Even though the judiciary is playing an active role,it is to be noted that the constitution (Article 329(b)) bars judicial interference in the election process during the conduct of elections, however the court can interfere in such matters through election petitions after the declaration of election results. 

This article is authored by ANOOJA. J.S, who was among the Top 40 performers in the Civil Procedural Law Quiz Competition organized by Lets Learn Law. The views and opinions expressed in this piece are solely those of the author.