Ina June 7 article Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha and Senior Congress leader Rahul Gandhi made a serious allegation of ‘industrial-scale rigging’ in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections.

His claims were strongly rebutted by the Election Commission of India (ECI), which dismissed them as ‘completely absurd’ and aimed at defaming the Commission.

In retaliation, Rahul Gandhi strongly objected to this rebuttal that came in the form of an unsigned note, raising questions about the transparency and accountability of the institution.

Meanwhile, Congress MP Jairam Ramesh cautioned ECI to be ‘independent and transparent’ and avoid speaking through BJP president J P Nadda. The ECI has long been regarded as one of India’s ‘most respected constitutional bodies’ entrusted with the vital task of ensuring conduct of free and fair elections to Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, State Legislative Assemblies and State Legislative Councils, besides elections to the offices of the President and Vice-President.

The CEC was a ‘one-man institution’ from March 21, 1950 to September 30, 1993. On October 1, 1993, it became a three-member body.

Registration procedures also have restrictions on the party names. Categorizing parties either when they register or later, such as national and regional is also in vogue.

The registration process is governed by ECI, which begins with submission of an application on the party letterhead, enclosing required fee remittance details, bye-laws including formal constitution with a provision regarding periodical organizational elections at different levels with a mention of term of office, declaration of office bearers, minimum number of members, and affidavits committing to secularism and democracy. But this drama is more a procedural one, than substantive.

In effect, ECI itself remarkably limited its own powers giving an impression that they are largely procedural, but not punitive. This contradiction, apparently strong in electoral conduct, weak in party ethics, has created a wide chasm between legal norms and ground realities. The reason is simple: The ethical part in some form or the other to be followed by parties is conspicuously absent, and over a time ECI conducting elections and political parties’ changing interpretation on ECI role has become a subject of unequivocal controversy, and ambiguous refutes by ECI.

Furthermore, ECI rarely dares to touch any political party on issues of dishonest promises and observations, except sticking to the rule book regarding the model code, expenses, affidavits, offensive or hate speeches that too during the election process.

Despite this inefficiency of ECI, in the vast and often turbulent arena of political parties, there have been shining examples of best practices that elevated democratic values, practices that signalled evolving norms, and individuals who led parties not just to electoral success but to moral and institutional maturity. These instances provide blueprints for what political leadership can and should be. It is beyond doubt that, in the often-unpredictable theatre of Indian democracy, political parties serve as principal vehicles of public representation, policy formulation, and power negotiation.

ECI in January 2017 published a book, ‘Unfolding Indian Elections-Journey of the living democracy’ that documented interesting facts on Indian elections. Post-Independence and with Universal Adult Suffrage, first general elections were held for Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies simultaneously during 1951-52. Every citizen above 21 years (18, since 2014 elections) of age was eligible to vote. The enormous task to enrol every adult citizen was fairly a grand success.

Spending money or buying votes in the first general elections, the whole process of which took place from September 10, 1951 to June 4, 1952, was an anathema. The global community witnessed these elections with great interest. It took notice of subsequent elections with journalists, politicians and observers from numerous countries descending upon India to see its novel experiment of adult suffrage.

The first CEO Sukumar Sen oversaw the elections. Indelible ink for application on voter’s fingers was developed by Indian Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. Metal and wooden boxes were used to receive ballots. Each candidate was assigned one box then. Strangely some voters regarded ballot boxes as objects of worship and dropped flowers, and some dropped papers writing something.

From Sukumar to present CEO Gyanesh Kumar, it has been a long and successful journey. Let us hope that the ECI will use its established powers.