In a comprehensive analysis published in "Indian Politics & Policy" (Vol. 5, No. 1, Summer 2025), a research periodical of the Washington DC-based think tank Policy Studies Organization, author Milan Vaishnav, Senior Fellow and Director, South Asia Programme, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has raised questions over the fairness of the Election Commission of India (ECI) in conducting Lok Sabha elections. Titled “Assessing the Integrity of India’s 2024 Lok Sabha Elections,” the analysis acquires significance as it precedes recent controversies surrounding the ECI’s move to revise electoral rolls.
The ECI’s directive to conduct a special summary revision of voter lists, announced in mid-2025, aims to update electoral rolls ahead of state assembly elections, starting with Bihar, where over 1.5 million voters may be removed. Opposition parties have alleged disproportionate deletions in minority-dominated constituencies, raising fears of voter suppression. These developments build on the concerns outlined in Vaishnav’s paper, which focuses on three critical areas—ECI’s conduct, political finance, and investigative agencies—arguing that these factors have fueled perceptions of an uneven electoral playing field.
According to Vaishnav, “Compared to its peers in South Asia and across the developing world, India has an enviable track record of electoral democracy dating back more than seven decades. However, in recent years, a perception has grown that the shine of India’s vaunted electoral machinery has dulled, with the electoral playing field tilting toward the ruling party.” India’s electoral democracy, Vaishnav notes, has outperformed neighbors like Bangladesh and Pakistan, maintaining consistency since Independence, except during the 1975-77 Emergency. He cites the V-Dem Institute’s liberal democracy index, showing India’s electoral democracy surpassing its liberal democracy metrics, including rule of law and institutional checks.
However, Vaishnav highlights a decline in electoral integrity, with India’s score on a 47-indicator index falling from 60 to 50 (on a 0-100 scale) between 2014 and 2019. The 2024 elections, where the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) secured 240 seats—short of a majority despite its “Ab Ki Baar Char Sau Paar” campaign—intensified concerns due to procedural irregularities. Vaishnav observes, “In some ways, the surprising election outcome seemed to confirm scholarly assessments that the core infirmities of Indian democracy relate to the period between elections, rather than the electoral processes and procedures themselves.”
The ECI, empowered by Article 324, has faced accusations of bias since the BJP’s 2014 dominance, observes Vaishnav. He points to the 2017 Gujarat election, where the ECI delayed polling dates, allowing the BJP-led government to launch welfare schemes pre-Model Code of Conduct (MCC). In 2024, Vaishnav notes, the ECI’s scheduling—expanding Odisha’s elections to four phases, West Bengal to seven, and Maharashtra to five from three (1962-2024)—seemed to favor the BJP’s resources. The MCC’s enforcement has been inconsistent, Vaishnav argues. In 2019, complaints against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP president Amit Shah for divisive rhetoric were dismissed, despite dissent from Commissioner Ashok Lavasa, who subsequently faced investigations. In 2024, Modi’s Rajasthan speech, alleging Congress would redistribute wealth to “infiltrators,” drew a mild ECI response. A BJP Karnataka video depicting Congress as anti-Hindu was removed only after 10 million shares.
In Surat, the BJP candidate won unopposed after the Congress candidate’s nomination was rejected and eight others withdrew mysteriously, notes Vaishnav. In Indore, the Congress candidate joined the BJP, and the backup’s nomination was rejected, with NOTA garnering over 200,000 votes. In Varanasi, 33 of 41 nominations were rejected, reducing candidates from 42 in 2014 to seven in 2024.
Transparency issues concern Vaishnav, noting the ECI’s delayed 2024 voter turnout data with discrepant figures. The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) sued for Form 17C data—records of voter turnout in every polling station of a constituency—but the ECI claimed no public disclosure obligation.
Political finance, Vaishnav argues, worsened with the 2018 electoral bonds scheme. The Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling revealed 30 firms under Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Income Tax probes donated Rs. 335 crore to the BJP. Vaishnav writes, “It is difficult, if not impossible, to make causal claims about the impact of bonds on the outcome of the 2024 elections. But what one can say with confidence is that the scheme has greatly benefitted the BJP,” which received 55% of bonds from 2017-18 to 2022-23, compared to 15% for Congress.
Investigative agencies, Vaishnav contends, saw a fourfold rise in ED cases against politicians from 2014 to September 2024, with 95% targeting opposition figures. Only 0.5% of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cases resulted in convictions. He highlights Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren’s pre-election arrest and tax demands of $25 million and $218 million on Congress.
Vaishnav concludes, “While these issues do not necessarily vitiate the entirety of the election process, they collectively fuel the perception that elections are not as fair as they ought to be.” The 2025 voter roll revision controversy underscores the urgency for reforms to restore ECI neutrality, enhance finance transparency, and curb agency misuse to safeguard India’s democratic integrity.
Comments