By Nilotpal Basu
British statesman, Sir Anthony Eden acknowledged India’s constitution making process as a “stupendous exercise” of democratic practice on an unprecedented scale. He viewed it not as a mere imitation of western models, but as a bold democratic venture with incalculable global influence. He famously stated that the Indian attempt was “not a pale imitation of our practice at home, but a magnified and multiplied reproduction on a scale we have never dreamt of.” While observing this, he recognised the monumental challenge of unifying a massive population across worst diversity and believed that “if it succeeds, its influence of Asia is incalculable for good”. Eden expressed his deep respect for the intentions of those who were drafting the Indian Constitution.
This reference to the Indian Constitution making process is becoming important to address the challenges that we face in encountering the current conjuncture where the corporate communal nexus currently governing India is trying to dismantle the core elements of our Constitution. It is perhaps no coincidence that those who are responsible for the governance now had not even a remote connection with the original exercise and the freedom struggle which set it out. In setting up the infrastructure and edifice of Indian democracy, the rich diversity and a vast population of the country had to be considered. The biggest challenge obviously was to stave off the challenge of majoritarianism. Consequently, it had to be essentially inclusive in nature.
However, the fact is that Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is a major fountainhead of the corporate-communal nexus, acting as a driver of the process. The latest debate on the RSS refusal to come clean on the very nature of its material existence betrays a certain degree of disdain for accountability. In contrast, the Indian Constitution took the greatest care and attention to ensure accountability of the Executive to the citizenry as the bedrock of democracy. Therefore, the main prop for the democratic setup in the country was an independent and transparent multi-party electoral system which would be overseen by an independent body, the Election Commission of India. Maximum importance was attached to removing the impediments to the independence of the ECI, obviously on the presumption that as a constitutional entity it would remain true to the spirit of Constitution making process and to the rights of the citizen.
It is here that recent developments have brought disrepute to the entire process. The credibility of the electoral system itself faces severe stress. Unfortunately, the Judiciary, as the custodian of the Constitution and the basic rights of the citizens against transgressions of the Executive and the Legislature, is failing to protect ‘basic features of the Constitution’. The Constitution makers were clear that for the electoral democracy to be free and fair, universal adult franchise was the basic minimum. While reinforcing the ECI, the Constitution is equally, if not increasingly, zealous about sustaining the constitutional right to vote. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the Electoral Rolls initiated by the ECI in June 2025 in Bihar and subsequently expanded to 12 other states, strikes at the very root of the constitutional right of the citizen to vote. While the ECI is expected to verify the citizenship of the voter, determination of citizenship is beyond the purview of the poll body. The latest Supreme Court order has specifically detailed out this distinction.
But the fact remains that in West Bengal, 27 lakh voters though not removed from the Voter List, were kept in suspended animation under a strange categorisation of ‘Under Adjudication’. Undoubtedly, judicially speaking, this amounted to denial of the constitutional rights; more so, with whatever small numbers eventually got adjudicated by a Judicial Tribunal were found to be valid. The Voter’s List is the first of the basic requirement for holding of free and fair election. With the ECI effectively taking away that right for a substantial number of people and the higher judiciary failing to protect the constitutional right of the voters, the damage was substantial. The SIR process has also come to face the charge of failing to ensure an inclusive Electoral Roll, where social, economic and religious equality of the population seems to have been sidelined.
The second basic requirement is the free and fair conduct of the election without favouring any political party. Here again, extremely serious charges of partisanship have come to blemish the ECI’s conduct. The latest example is the conduct of the Rajya Sabha election in the state of Madhya Pradesh. In an unprecedented act, the Returning Officer disqualified a candidate on the ground of inaccuracy of the factual details of her affidavit accompanying her nomination. Subsequent judgement of the Telangana High Court has shown that the alleged inaccuracy was unfounded and based solely on the claims of the ruling BJP’s candidate. Here again, the higher judiciary, in their concern for the independence of the ECI has not remedied the brazenly partisan behaviour of the Returning Officer, or upheld the right of an individual to contest an election.
The final requirement of the electoral system is guaranteeing that candidates winning the election on the symbol of a political party and on the presumption that they have approached the electorate based on the policy and programme of that party should continue to represent that party in the Legislature. However, there are serious allegations about the Presiding Officer of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, that there is a brazen reversal of this principle on a large scale. This question has serious ramifications for the passage of future legislations, particularly regarding the setting up of the delimitation process, which constitutes yet another vital element of the electoral system.
Overall, the democratic foundations based on the multi-party electoral system stands severely threatened. The ruling political party, BJP, is displaying its claws and fangs and is poised to ‘cleanse’ the polity of any serious democratic opposition. In the Indian context, this poses the additional threat of bulldozing diversity with one dimensional majoritarian policy. This is an absolute anachronism in the 21st century! The aggressive neo-liberal and oligarchic order makes this situation a textbook demonstration of neo-fascist characteristics. The broadest possible unity of forces who cherish democracy, secularism, federalism and social justice can be the only way forward to rebuff the threat of uninstalling democracy. (IPA Service)
