Needed: a level playing field in Indian elections

Since Independence, India’s electoral process has evolved into a complex and largely resilient institutional framework. Recent events and public discourse — reflected in media coverage, debates in parliament and in civil society interventions, besides judicial proceedings — have raised renewed questions about the integrity of elections.

There is clearly growing concern whether all political actors are truly competing on a level playing field. These concerns deserve serious attention if India’s elections are to remain credible, inclusive and trusted by the people.

At its core, a level playing field in elections implies equal opportunity for political parties and candidates to communicate with voters, mobilise resources and seek electoral support without undue advantage to any actor. This principle is not merely aspirational; it is central to democratic legitimacy. When electoral outcomes are shaped more by asymmetries in power, resources or institutional access than by the contestation of ideas, the representative character of democracy is weakened.

One of the most prominent concerns in recent political discourse relates to disparities in political finance. Available data indicate a substantial gap between the financial resources of the ruling party and those of opposition parties. Electoral bonds introduced with the stated objective of improving transparency have instead attracted criticism for enabling opacity in political funding.

Allegations that enforcement actions by state agencies have been followed by political donations to the ruling party have further eroded public confidence. The Supreme Court set aside the electoral bonds but the huge funds collected by political parties still remain with them and will continue to disturb the level playing field. The electoral trusts in use today reflect similar patterns, with funds still managed by corporate houses, and thus susceptible to the dubious practices of the ruling establishment.

This problem could have been addressed by restructuring the management of these trusts into a broad-based body that allocates funds to political parties based on criteria proposed by the Commission and agreed upon by all parties.

In addition to unequal access of parties to corporate funding, the use of public funds and state welfare schemes in close proximity to elections by the government in power has raised questions about competitive neutrality. In recent years, several states have announced direct cash transfers or benefit schemes on the eve of elections. There are complaints that such transfers continued even after the announcement of election schedules, despite the Model Code of Conduct being in force.

In essence, these fund transfers amount to bribing voters using public resources. They have occurred notwithstanding the extensive constitutional and statutory powers vested in the Election Commission of India (ECI) in Article 324 of the Constitution to check corrupt practices in elections.

These issues underline the need for a comprehensive Political Finance Law. The existing provisions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, are inadequate for enforcing accountability. A modern legal framework should mandate full transparency of political donations, ensure strict enforcement of expenditure limits by both individual candidates and political parties. Such a law can draw upon international best practices while being tailored to India’s political realities.

At present, only candidates are subjected to expenditure limits (it is next to impossible to enforce the limit) while political parties have no limits prescribed and can spend as much as they want.

****

The digital transformation of electoral campaigns presents both opportunities and risks. Political parties with deep pockets now maintain sophisticated IT cells that enhance their outreach. Concerns have been raised about surrogate advertising, opaque targeted messaging and micro-targeting of voters without adequate safeguards.

The emergence of AI-generated political content, such as manipulated audio-visual material and deepfakes, adds a new dimension to electoral risk. During the 2024 general elections, reports of AI-generated videos and images raised serious questions about misinformation, deception of voters and erosion of informed consent.

These developments necessitate clearer regulatory norms for digital political advertising, mandatory transparency in online political spending and institutional mechanisms to identify and counter deceptive content. Electoral authorities, technology platforms and political parties must share responsibility for preserving the integrity of the digital campaign space.

Hate speeches and digital content created by political parties and their supporters to polarise voters on social media also create confusion in the voter’s mind; such violators should be held accountable. Social media platforms may be approached to include a para on voluntary restraint in the terms and conditions of their service; this must hold them accountable to the law of the land and the ECI must enforce it during elections.

Perhaps the most widely discussed theme in contemporary electoral debates is the perceived neutrality of the Election Commission of India. For a level playing field to exist, the electoral umpire must not only be independent but must also be seen to be independent; the appointment process of the electoral management body (EMB) must be transparent — some countries even mandate parliamentary approval for such appointments.

Recent political discourse has included allegations that the ECI has been inconsistent or lenient in enforcing norms, particularly in relation to ruling party conduct — hate speeches by the star campaigners of the party in power often go unchecked. Even the perception of bias can damage institutional credibility.

Concerns surrounding voter lists merit special attention. Manipulation or largescale errors in electoral rolls can decisively affect outcomes if political parties and citizens are not vigilant. Recent Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercises — most notably in Bihar, followed by other states—have drawn criticism for being exclusionary.

Long-established voter registration procedures were replaced with processes that placed the burden on voters to produce documentary proof of citizenship, despite the absence of a universal citizenship document in India. The identification of ineligible entries in voter rolls was managed without major disruption for over seven decades, underscoring that more balanced approaches are available.

Apart from voter registration, the delimitation of constituencies and location of polling stations are other pre-election activities where manipulations are possible. There is a procedure in place for consultation with political parties but parties with no cadres and meagre resources are unable to take advantage of these consultations. As a result, the possibility of gerrymandering in favour of the resource-rich parties is always present. Associate members on the delimitation commission fail to ensure effective participation due to lack of resources.

Transparency concerns also extend to electronic voting machines (EVMs) and Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) verification. While the VVPAT was introduced to enhance voter confidence, the current practice of verifying slips from only five polling stations per constituency defeats the very purpose. Demands have been raised for public scrutiny of EVM and VVPAT software. This demand, along with the counting of VVPAT slips, at least on demand, deserves serious consideration.

Equally important is the accessibility of voter lists in machine-readable formats well in advance of elections. Such transparency enables independent verification by political parties and civil society, reduces administrative errors and strengthens confidence in the integrity of the electoral process.

If India aspires to global leadership, the goal of free, fair and widely accepted elections must receive renewed and serious attention. Numerous reform proposals — emanating from the Election Commission, parliamentary committees, the Law Commission and civil society organisations such as the Association for Democratic Reforms — remain unimplemented.

It is high time these proposals are examined for a comprehensive electoral reform and a level playing field is created for all stakeholders with accountability for any violations.