Judiciary's Role in Electoral Matters

Article 324 grants the ECI authority to conduct free and fair elections. However, this power isn't absolute. Judicial review acts as a check, preventing potential arbitrary or unconstitutional actions by the ECI. It balances the ECI's operational independence with accountability to the Constitution and fundamental rights. Without judicial review, the ECI could potentially overstep its authority, infringing on citizens' rights or undermining the democratic process.

The most common trap is confusing the filing deadline. While the actual deadline is typically 45 days from the date of the election result, options might include 30 days, 60 days, or even the date of the election itself. Students often misremember the exact number, especially under exam pressure.

The judiciary generally avoids intervening in the ECI's routine operations to prevent disruption. However, it steps in when there's a clear violation of law or the Constitution. For example, if the ECI is perceived to be biased or is not enforcing the Model Code of Conduct effectively, the courts can issue directives. A real-world example would be a High Court directing the ECI to review its decision regarding the deployment of central forces in sensitive areas during an election, based on credible threats to voters.

If the judiciary completely abstained, several problems would arise:

• •Absence of recourse against arbitrary decisions: Candidates unfairly disqualified or voter rights violated would have no legal remedy.
• •Unchecked power of the ECI: The ECI's actions, even if unconstitutional, could not be challenged, potentially leading to biased elections.
• •Increased electoral malpractices: Without judicial oversight, instances of fraud, rigging, and other malpractices could rise unchecked.
• •Erosion of public trust: The lack of an independent body to resolve disputes would erode public confidence in the electoral process.

The Supreme Court's 2019 directive to increase VVPAT verification aimed to enhance transparency and voter confidence. Arguments for wider use include:

• •Increased voter confidence: VVPATs provide a physical record of the vote, assuring voters that their vote was recorded correctly.
• •Detection of EVM malfunctions: VVPATs can help identify discrepancies between the EVM count and the paper trail.
• •Enhanced transparency: The verification process makes the electoral process more transparent and accountable.

The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is a set of guidelines for political parties and candidates during elections to ensure a level playing field. If the ECI fails to enforce it effectively, citizens can petition the High Courts or the Supreme Court. While the judiciary cannot directly enforce the MCC as if it were a law, it can direct the ECI to take specific actions to ensure its enforcement or address violations.

Recent challenges to electoral bonds in courts have focused on:

• •Lack of transparency: Critics argue that the anonymity of donors violates the right to information and makes the system prone to corruption.
• •Unequal playing field: Concerns have been raised that the scheme disproportionately benefits larger parties with more corporate connections.
• •Potential for quid pro quo: The anonymity of donors raises concerns about potential quid pro quo arrangements between companies and political parties.

Students often confuse the two because both relate to elections. However, Article 324 grants the ECI the power to conduct elections, while the judiciary's role is to review the ECI's actions and ensure they are constitutional and lawful. The ECI *conducts*, the judiciary *oversees* and *adjudicates*.

The strongest argument is that excessive judicial intervention can lead to 'judicial overreach,' disrupting the electoral process and undermining the ECI's authority. Critics argue that courts should only intervene in cases of clear constitutional violation, not on matters of policy or procedure. In response, one could argue that judicial review is a necessary safeguard against potential abuses of power by the ECI and ensures that elections are conducted fairly and transparently. The judiciary's role is not to micro-manage elections but to uphold the Constitution and protect citizens' rights.

Several reforms could strengthen the judiciary's role:

• •Specialized electoral courts: Establishing specialized courts or tribunals to handle election-related disputes could expedite the resolution process.
• •Capacity building: Training judges on election laws and technology can improve the quality of judicial review.
• •Greater transparency: Enhancing transparency in the judicial process related to electoral matters can increase public trust.
• •Clearer guidelines: Developing clearer guidelines on the scope of judicial intervention in electoral matters can reduce ambiguity and prevent overreach.

Judicial review is the power to examine the legality of decisions, while judicial intervention is the *act* of a court stepping in to change or direct the course of an election.

Compared to the US and UK, India's judiciary has a more proactive role in electoral matters. In the US, the courts generally defer to the election authorities unless there is a clear constitutional violation. In the UK, election disputes are often resolved through parliamentary processes. India's judiciary, on the other hand, is more willing to intervene to ensure free and fair elections, even in matters of policy or procedure. This can be seen as favorable in terms of protecting democratic principles, but also unfavorable in terms of potentially disrupting the electoral process.