Elections in India: the Commission, the law and the 2025 flashpoints

India conducts the largest democratic exercise on earth: nearly a billion voters, a million polling stations, and results in a single day. The institution that makes it work is the Election Commission, a constitutional body whose independence the framers protected with unusual care. This article covers the Commission's design, the 2023 law that changed how its members are chosen, the machinery of voter rolls and polling, and the 2025 developments, from the Special Intensive Revision to the ECINET platform, that aspirants must know.

Key takeaways

- The Election Commission (Article 324) is a constitutional body; the Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only in the manner applicable to a Supreme Court judge.

- The 2023 Act replaced convention with a selection committee of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and a Cabinet minister for appointing Commissioners.

- The 2025 Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, beginning with Bihar, became the year's biggest electoral flashpoint.

- ECINET, launched in 2025, unified the Commission's voter-facing digital services on a single platform.

The Commission: design and independence

Articles 324 to 329 create the electoral framework. Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections to Parliament, state legislatures and the offices of President and Vice-President in the Election Commission. The Commission is a multi-member body: the Chief Election Commissioner and such Election Commissioners as the President fixes. Since 1993 it has functioned as a three-member body, with decisions by majority and each commissioner having one vote.

The Constitution protects the CEC's independence: the CEC can be removed only like a Supreme Court judge, while other commissioners can be removed only on the CEC's recommendation. The framers' logic was that the referee of democracy must not fear the players. In practice the Commission's authority rests on Article 324's residuary power, which the Supreme Court has read broadly: where the law is silent, the Commission can act to ensure free and fair elections, the foundation of the Model Code of Conduct and much else.

The 2023 Act: a new way to choose the choosers

For decades the appointment of election commissioners was governed by executive convention. In Anoop Baranwal (2023) the Supreme Court directed that appointments be made on the advice of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India, until Parliament legislated. Parliament then enacted the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

The Act replaces the Chief Justice with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister on the selection committee, and creates a Search Committee headed by the Law Minister to prepare a panel of candidates. It fixes the term at six years or 65 years of age, whichever is earlier, and sets the salary of the CEC and Election Commissioners at the level of the Cabinet Secretary. The change is politically contested and legally challenged: critics argue that replacing the Chief Justice with a minister weakens the independence the Court sought to protect, while the government argues that appointments are an executive function. The dispute is live, and a staple of Mains answers on institutional independence.

The electoral machinery

The Representation of the People Acts of 1950 and 1951 supply the statutory detail: the 1950 Act covers the allocation of seats, delimitation and electoral rolls, while the 1951 Act covers the conduct of elections, qualifications and disqualifications, corrupt practices and election petitions. Key features aspirants must know:

• Electoral rolls: prepared under the 1950 Act, with registration of every citizen of 18 years or above who is ordinarily resident in the constituency. The qualifying date is 1 January of the revision year.
• EPIC: the Electors Photo Identity Card, issued to every registered voter as the standard identity document at polling stations.
• NOTA: the None of the Above option on electronic voting machines, introduced on the Supreme Court's direction in 2013, letting voters reject all candidates while recording their participation.
• Conduct: the 1951 Act lists corrupt practices (bribery, undue influence, communal appeals) and electoral offences, and provides for election petitions to High Courts.
• Disqualifications: conviction for specified offences, holding an office of profit, and defection under the Tenth Schedule disqualify a legislator.

Delimitation, the redrawing of constituency boundaries after each census, is done by an independent Delimitation Commission; the next delimitation after 2026 is one of the most politically sensitive exercises on the horizon, since population shifts will redistribute seats among states.

2025: SIR and the battle over the rolls

The defining electoral story of 2025 was the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar ahead of the assembly elections. The Commission described SIR as a purification exercise to remove dead, duplicate and shifted voters; opposition parties and civil society called it a potential mass disenfranchisement, particularly of migrant workers and marginalised communities. The Supreme Court declined to stall the exercise but directed transparency safeguards, including publication of the draft rolls and a claims-and-objections window. The controversy revived the oldest question in election administration: the trade-off between roll purity and universal inclusion, and who bears the cost of errors.

2025: ECINET and the digital Commission

Alongside the controversy, the Commission pushed ahead with digitisation. ECINET, the Commission's unified digital platform, was piloted during the Bihar 2025 polls, integrating voter services, election management and result dissemination into a single interface. The direction is clear: an Election Commission that runs on data dashboards rather than paper registers. For aspirants, the significance is institutional: technology is becoming the Commission's answer to both scale and credibility, from EVM-VVPAT management to real-time turnout reporting.

Why elections dominate the exam

Elections sit at the junction of polity, governance and current affairs, which is why they appear in both Prelims and Mains every year. Prelims tests the machinery: articles, the 2023 Act's provisions, the RP Acts, NOTA, EPIC. Mains tests the principles: the independence of the Commission, the appointment controversy, the inclusion-versus-purity debate in roll revision, money power and criminalisation, and the coming delimitation. The through-line is democratic legitimacy: every reform proposal is ultimately judged by whether it makes the people's verdict more faithfully recorded.

Lily Thomas (2013): the end of the three-month shield

Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) is the ruling that struck down Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. That sub-section had given a convicted MP or MLA a three-month window to appeal before disqualification took effect. The Court held the protection unconstitutional, so disqualification on conviction is now immediate, the moment the conviction is pronounced. This is the canonical citation for the disqualification discussion, asked in both Prelims and Mains.

Alongside the candidate-disclosure rulings and the NOTA (2013) judgment, Lily Thomas belongs to the Court's clean-politics decade: candidates must disclose criminal antecedents, voters must have a reject option, and convicted legislators must vacate immediately.

The constitutional base: Articles 325 and 326

Article 325 is the ban on communal electoral rolls: no person can be declared ineligible for the electoral roll, or claim inclusion on a special roll, on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex. Article 326 is the adult-suffrage clause: elections to the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies are on the basis of universal adult franchise, every citizen of eighteen years and above. The voting age was twenty-one until the 61st Amendment (1989) lowered it to eighteen.

Cross-links: the bonds verdict and the delisting drive

The electoral bonds verdict of February 2024 is the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling that struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme (2018) as violative of the voter's right to know under Article 19(1)(a): anonymous corporate donations to parties destroy the informational basis of the vote. It is analysed in the article on electoral systems and reforms.

The delisting drive is the Election Commission's periodic clean-up of registered but non-functional parties: parties that never contest elections or file contribution reports can have their registration cancelled, and the Commission has struck hundreds of such entities off the rolls in successive drives since 2016. It sits in the Commission's power to regulate parties, distinct from the recognition of national and state parties under the Symbols Order.

Section 123: what counts as a corrupt practice

The Representation of the People Act, 1951 does not leave corrupt practice to common sense; Section 123 lists it. Bribery (any gift, offer or promise to influence a vote or candidature), undue influence (direct or indirect interference with the free exercise of an electoral right, including threats), appeals to religion, race, caste, community or language, or to religious and national symbols, all qualify. So do false statements about a candidate's personal character, booth capturing, exceeding the expenditure ceiling (Section 77), and using vehicles to ferry voters free to the booth.

The sharpest edge is the religious-appeal clause. In Abhiram Singh (2017) the Supreme Court held that an election is a secular exercise, and an appeal for votes on the ground of religion, caste, race, community or language is a corrupt practice whether the appeal is made by the candidate, the agent or anyone with the candidate's consent. The 2025 mains paper pressed the next question: does a legislator's disproportionate asset growth amount to undue influence? The answer the Court's logic points to is no, not by itself. Undue influence needs interference with the voter's free will; unexplained wealth, without proof it bought votes or coerced them, sits in the domain of the Prevention of Corruption Act and tax law, not Section 123.

Challenging a result: election petitions under the RPA

An election can be questioned only in the way the statute allows. Under Section 81, any voter or candidate may file an election petition within 45 days of the result. The High Court tries petitions for Lok Sabha and assembly elections through a single judge nominated by the Chief Justice, following the Civil Procedure Code and the Evidence Act; disputes over the President's and Vice-President's elections go straight to the Supreme Court.

Section 100 lists the grounds for voiding an election: corrupt practices, improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes that materially affect the result, and non-compliance with the Constitution or the Act that materially affects the outcome. The court may declare the election valid or void, or order a re-election (Sections 98-99). An aggrieved party appeals to the Supreme Court under Section 116A. The bar on mid-election interference comes from Article 329(b), upheld in Ponnuswamy v. Returning Officer (1952): courts cannot intervene once the election is notified; challenges wait for the petition after results.

Criminalisation and the charge-framing debate

The law disqualifies on conviction, not charge. In Lily Thomas (2013) the Supreme Court struck down the three-month shield that had let convicted legislators keep their seats pending appeal, making disqualification immediate under Section 8. Reformers want to move the trigger earlier: the 244th Law Commission report recommended disqualification at the framing of charges for serious offences, with safeguards such as trial within a year and protection against politically motivated cases. The counterweight is the presumption of innocence: in a system where charges can be filed strategically, several committees have preferred fast-track trials and time-bound disposal over pre-conviction disqualification.

Prelims hooks

• Article 324: superintendence, direction and control of elections vested in the Election Commission; the Commission's residuary power where the law is silent.
• CEC removable like a Supreme Court judge; other commissioners removable only on the CEC's recommendation.
• Anoop Baranwal (2023): the Court prescribed a PM-LoP-CJI selection committee until Parliament legislated.
• CEC and EC (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023: Search Committee headed by the Law Minister; selection committee of the PM, the LoP and a Cabinet Minister; six-year term or 65 years; salary at Cabinet Secretary level.
• RP Act, 1950: seats, delimitation, rolls; RP Act, 1951: conduct of elections, corrupt practices, disqualifications, election petitions.
• NOTA introduced 2013 on the Supreme Court's direction; EPIC is the standard voter ID; qualifying age 18.
• SIR: Special Intensive Revision of rolls, the 2025 Bihar exercise and its inclusion-versus-purity controversy.
• ECINET: the Commission's unified digital platform, piloted during the Bihar 2025 polls.
• Delimitation is done by an independent Delimitation Commission; the post-2026 delimitation will redistribute seats by population.

Mains angle

Election questions reward answers that move from design to dilemma. Start with the constitutional design: an independent Commission with residuary powers, protected tenures and a broad mandate, which explains why Indian elections are credible at continental scale. Then identify the pressure points: appointments (the 2023 Act controversy), money power and criminalisation, the Model Code's lack of statutory backing, and the rolls debate between purity and inclusion.

Use 2025's developments as evidence: SIR shows that even technical exercises like roll revision carry democratic stakes, and the Court's insistence on transparency safeguards shows the judiciary's continuing role as the Commission's backstop. On appointments, present both sides fairly: the executive's claim that appointments are its prerogative against the Court's logic that the referee cannot be chosen by one team. Conclude with the reform agenda most commissions recommend: a collegium-style appointment process with constitutional backing, state funding of elections, and statutory status for the Model Code.

Key Terms

• CEC and EC (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023: The CEC and EC (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 replaced the 1991 law governing the Election Commission's top posts. The President appoints the CEC and ECs on the recommendation of a committee of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and a minister nominated by the Prime Minister; tenure is six years or age 65. It is the legal core of the UPSC debate on insulating the poll body from the executive. CEC Gyanesh Kumar's February 2025 appointment was the first made under this law.
• Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 gave convicted MPs and MLAs a three-month window to appeal before disqualification took effect, shielding sitting legislators from immediate disqualification. The Supreme Court struck it down in Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013), making disqualification immediate on conviction for offences listed in Section 8. For UPSC, it is a landmark GS-2 point on decriminalisation of politics and electoral reform. Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013)
• The Representation of the People Acts of 1950 and 1951: The Representation of the People Acts of 1950 and 1951 are the twin statutes, enacted under Article 327, that govern Indian elections. The 1950 Act covers allocation of seats, delimitation, electoral rolls and voter qualifications, while the 1951 Act covers the conduct of elections, nominations, corrupt practices, disqualifications and election disputes. Section 8 of the 1951 Act disqualifies legislators convicted of specified offences
• Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) is: Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) is the Supreme Court judgment of 10 July 2013 that struck down Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, ending the three-month protection that let convicted MPs and MLAs keep their seats pending appeal. Conviction for offences carrying two or more years' imprisonment now means immediate disqualification. It is a cornerstone prelims case on electoral disqualification and the criminalisation of politics. Rahul Gandhi's 2023 disqualification as Lok Sabha MP after a two-year sentence
• electoral bonds verdict of February 2024 is: The electoral bonds verdict of February 2024 is the Supreme Court's unanimous decision of 15 February 2024 in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, striking down the Electoral Bond Scheme of 2018 as unconstitutional. The five-judge bench held that anonymous political donations violate voters' right to information under Article 19(1)(a). It matters for UPSC as the landmark ruling on electoral funding transparency and the balance between donor privacy and the public's right to know. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024)
• Electors Photo Identity Card: The Electors Photo Identity Card, or EPIC, is the photo identity document issued to every registered voter in India, introduced in 1993 during T.N. Seshan's tenure as Chief Election Commissioner to clean up electoral rolls. It carries the voter's photograph, name and EPIC number and is the standard ID shown at polling booths. It matters for UPSC in discussions of electoral reforms and voter verification. Example: voters producing their EPIC at polling stations on election day. voters producing their EPIC at polling stations on election day
• Chief Justice of India: The Chief Justice of India is the head of the Indian judiciary and the presiding judge of the Supreme Court. Appointed by the President under Article 124, by convention the senior-most Supreme Court judge succeeds to the office. The CJI is the master of the roster, allocating cases among benches, and heads the collegium that recommends judicial appointments. For UPSC, the office links the debates on appointment, independence, and accountability. Under Article 60, the CJI administers the oath of office to the President.
• Model Code of Conduct: The Model Code of Conduct is a set of guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India to regulate the behaviour of political parties and candidates during elections, covering speeches, polling-day conduct, use of official machinery and announcements of new schemes. It comes into force from the announcement of the election schedule until results are declared. It matters for UPSC because its constitutional basis, enforceability and relation to free and fair elections are frequently asked in prelims and GS-2 mains. The Election Commission's enforcement of the code during the 2024 Lok Sabha general elections
• None of the Above: None of the Above, or NOTA, is the ballot option that lets a voter reject all contesting candidates while recording participation, introduced on EVMs after the Supreme Court's 2013 judgment in PUCL v. Union of India. A high NOTA count does not alter the result, since the candidate with the most valid votes still wins. For UPSC, it anchors debates on electoral reform, voter expression, and the limits of negative voting. NOTA has polled over two percent in several constituencies, notably in Bihar elections.
• Chief Election Commissioner: The Chief Election Commissioner is the head of the Election Commission of India, the constitutional body under Article 324 that conducts elections to Parliament, state legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President. Appointed by the President on the selection committee's recommendation under the 2023 Act, the CEC serves six years or until age 65 and can be removed only like a Supreme Court judge. The CEC enforces the Model Code of Conduct on governments and parties during elections.
• Special Intensive Revision: The Special Intensive Revision is the Election Commission's door-to-door re-verification of electoral rolls, ordered from June 2025 starting with Bihar. Conducted under Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, it aims to remove duplicate, shifted and ineligible entries so that only citizens are enrolled. The exercise was politically controversial and was challenged before the Supreme Court. Bihar's 2025 SIR was the first phase of the nationwide revision.
• Electoral Bond Scheme: The Electoral Bond Scheme was a 2017 scheme letting individuals and companies buy interest-free bearer bonds from the State Bank of India and donate them anonymously to political parties. It was meant to bring transparency to political funding but was criticised for anonymous corporate influence. The Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional on 15 February 2024, ruling that it violated the right to information. For UPSC, it matters centrally in GS-2 questions on electoral reform and democratic accountability. Following the Court's judgment, the State Bank of India was ordered to disclose bond purchase details to the Election Commission of India.

Practice questions

How a party becomes national or state: the recognition test

The Election Commission grants recognition as a national or state party on the basis of poll performance, under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. Recognition matters: a recognised party gets an exclusive symbol, access to electoral rolls, free broadcast time on state media, needs only one proposer per candidate, and may field 40 star campaigners (registered but unrecognised parties get 20). Fulfilling any one condition in each list is enough:

The two Representation of the People Acts, and the rules beneath them

Parliament fleshed out Part XV of the Constitution through two companion statutes, and the exam constantly tests which Act does what.

• RPA, 1950 is the preparatory Act: allocation of seats in the Lok Sabha and the assemblies, delimitation of constituencies, and the preparation of electoral rolls. Rolls are maintained by Electoral Registration Officers under the Election Commission, with Chief Electoral Officers at state level and District Election Officers below.
• RPA, 1951 is the conduct Act: qualifications and disqualifications of candidates (Section 8 for criminal convictions, 8A for corrupt practices, 9A for government contracts, 10A for failure to lodge election expenses), and settlement of election disputes through petitions in the High Courts within 45 days.
• The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 govern the preparation and publication of the rolls, while the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 lay down the machinery for free and fair polling.
• The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 exempts certain offices of profit from disqualification for Parliament membership.

2021: Aadhaar, four qualifying dates and gender-neutral rolls

• The Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 amends both RPAs to carry out four electoral reforms.
• Aadhaar linkage: Section 23 of the RPA, 1950 was amended so electoral officers may ask for Aadhaar to verify identity; alternate documents are allowed where Aadhaar is unavailable.
• Four qualifying dates: the single qualifying date of 1 January became four dates a year (1 January, 1 April, 1 July and 1 October), so a citizen who turns 18 need not wait almost a full year to enrol.
• Terminology update: the word wife in the Acts was replaced with the gender-neutral spouse.
• Premises requisition: the power to requisition premises was expanded for counting, storage of EVMs and poll materials, and accommodation of security and polling staff.