Shine of Indian Elections: Trust, ECI and Electoral Reform

The Lift Line

“No country on earth needs democracy more than India does. No country needs elections more than India does.” (Akshay Rout, The Hindu, 12 October 2026)

Why This Editorial Matters for Your Exam

Akshay Rout, a former Director General of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and a public policy commentator, writes in The Hindu on 12 October 2026 that the protests around the poll body raise a bigger question: “whether the much vaunted Indian election is losing its shine”. His answer is that the danger is wider than any single dispute. Elections have given India “critical stability, reasonable governance, post-colonial reconstruction and a pathway to development”, he writes, but “trust has become the issue”.

The value of the piece for an aspirant is that it comes from inside the system. Rout criticises no single party: he lists the Commission, the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, the winners, the losers and the voters as actors who must “play an alert remedial role”. That makes it a ready-made framework for any Mains question on electoral reform. For the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, see our editorials on the obstacle race of the SIR and the ECI’s constitutional mandate; for the appointments law, see the court divided on the CEC Act and the lesson from the UN on selecting a CEC; for the 1993 shift to a multi-member Commission, see the Seshan confrontation.

GS Paper 2: constitutional bodies (the Election Commission, Article 324); appointment to constitutional posts; electoral reforms; the anti-defection law; the role of political parties.

In the news: amid protests around the Election Commission, Akshay Rout, a former ECI Director General, argues in The Hindu (12 October 2026) that trust, not logistics, is now the weak point of Indian elections. He names five pressure points: the electoral rolls, disinformation, money power and cash transfers, defections, and the 2023 law on appointing Election Commissioners, which is still before the Supreme Court. His remedy is a “collective and apolitical sit-down” of political parties.

Background and Context

The Election Commission at a glance

How the Commission became three members

The 2023 Act: who selects the Commission

The Chief Justice of India, part of the interim arrangement of 2023, is not on the Selection Committee. Rout calls the arrangement “a collegium”; the Act’s own term is a Selection Committee.

The Analysis

1. From logistics to trust. Rout’s central contrast is between the first elections and today’s. Sukumar Sen, he writes, “had unimaginable logistical challenges to handle, but certainly not one of trust.” Now the position is reversed: “Today, after 75 years of experience and growing resources, while the massive logistics in elections is routine, trust has become the issue.” (Rout places the first elections “in 1951”; the ECI’s own history puts them over 1951-52.) Results, he says, “were mostly received with stoic calm. But no more.”

2. The rolls. The SIR, “which began a year ago” in Rout’s words, has drawn “attention, litigation and agitation”. His larger worry is structural: “the possibility of manipulating the voter database through undue enfranchisement or disenfranchisement poses a threat at a larger scale” than the booth capturing, intimidation and bogus voting of earlier decades, which “were still limited to certain pockets”.

3. The information war. Ground level campaigns and door-to-door canvassing “have given way to digital battles where fast moving disinformation and deep fakes are the new weaponry.” Rout later lists “the threat of AI-abetted fake narratives” among the demands to be met.

4. Money and freebies. Rout argues that disclosed expenditure reports are “just tip of the icebergs” and that “The institutional release of cash into the wallets of population segments, touted as welfare, has distorted electoral integrity, besides public finance.” He cites the Economic Survey for a figure of ₹1.7 lakh crore, which he calls the “strain” on States. Read the source with care: Box II.7 of the Economic Survey 2025-26, on unconditional cash transfers (UCT), says “Aggregate spending on UCT programmes, particularly for women, is estimated at approximately 1.7 lakh crore for FY26”. It is a spending estimate, not a measured strain. The same box adds that the number of States running such transfers rose “more than fivefold between FY23 and FY26”, with “around half” of them estimated to be in revenue deficit, which is the Survey’s own fiscal warning.

5. Defections after the vote. “Post poll subversion casts a darker shadow,” Rout writes. In his reading, “the anti-defection law has induced the bulk transfer of elected legislators thanks to exceptions allowed in the 10th Schedule”, and “Opportunistic realignments have made a mockery of voters’ choice in the absence of a recall system.” One such exception is the merger clause in paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule: a member is not disqualified when the original party merges with another, and the merger is deemed to have taken place “if, and only if, not less than two-thirds of the members of the legislature party concerned have agreed to such merger.” Rout also notes that the Speaker’s recognition and the ECI’s allocation of symbols, the follow-ups to such moves, “have also not been free of partisan accusations”.

6. The appointments law. Rout says the 2023 law “has not helped matters; and is still under the study of Supreme Court.” That is accurate on status. For context, on 23 September 2026 a two-judge bench split on whether to refer the challenge to a larger bench. No ruling on the Act’s validity has been given.

7. The remedy. Rout rejects “Political rhetoric” as a solution and asks parties for “a collective and apolitical sit-down for the systemic fortification of Indian elections by building more safeguards and accountability and plugging structural and legal loopholes”. He reads the move to “a three-member Commission to replace the single Chief Election Commissioner in 1993” as an example of that logic. His list of demands: “the better regulation of political financing and the menace of freebies; shielding of the electoral process from criminalisation; and dealing with the threat of AI-abetted fake narratives”. Above all, “trust has to be worked back into the system.”

Data and Institutions Vault

Prelims-grade facts:

• Article 324(1): superintendence, direction and control of electoral rolls and elections to Parliament, State Legislatures, President and Vice-President vest in the ECI.
• Article 324(2): the President fixes the number of other Election Commissioners; appointments are subject to any law made by Parliament.
• Article 324(5): the CEC is removable only like a Supreme Court judge; other Election Commissioners only on the CEC’s recommendation.
• ECI founded 25 January 1950; first CEC Sukumar Sen (1950-58); first general elections 1951-52.
• 1 October 1993: Ordinance No. 32 of 1993; Election Commissioners other than the CEC fixed at two; it became Act No. 4 of 1994.
• Act No. 49 of 2023: Selection Committee of the PM (Chairperson), the Leader of Opposition and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM.
• Search Committee: headed by the Law Minister with two members not below Secretary rank; prepares a panel of five.
• Term: six years or age 65, whichever is earlier; no re-appointment (Section 9, 2023 Act).
• 2024 electorate: 97,97,51,847 electors, of whom 47,63,11,240 women.
• IIIDEM, the ECI’s training institute, launched on 17 June 2011.
• Tenth Schedule, paragraph 4: a merger counts only if not less than two-thirds of the legislature party agree.

⚠️ Watch the trap: the 2023 Selection Committee has no Chief Justice of India; Rout’s “collegium” is loose. The Survey’s Rs 1.7 lakh crore is UCT spending, not a measured strain.

The Debate

Rout’s case. India has earned its reputation by running free elections at a scale and under conditions that few countries match. That reputation is now at risk, not because the machinery has failed but because confidence in it is eroding from many sides at once: the rolls, the information space, money, defections and the appointment of the referees. The fix cannot come from any one institution. Parties, who are both the players and the main critics, must agree on the rules together.

The other side. Contesting the referee’s conduct is part of democratic accountability; protests and litigation are how a system tests its institutions. A voluntary all-party sit-down has no means of enforcement, and parties gain from some of the practices Rout criticises, which is why reforms of political finance and defection have stalled before. On cash transfers, the line between welfare and inducement is contested: what one side calls a freebie another calls a social guarantee, and the Survey’s figure measures spending, not electoral distortion. Finally, some of the trust deficit may need firmer remedies than consensus, such as statutory changes to the appointment process or a ruling on the 2023 Act.

The balanced verdict. Rout’s diagnosis is sound: an election system lives on the loser’s consent, and that consent depends on trust in the rolls, the rules and the referee. His remedy needs a second half. Consensus can set the agenda, but durable trust will also need institutional anchors: an appointment process that all sides accept, transparent roll revisions, enforceable rules on political finance, and a clear judicial answer on the 2023 Act.

How to Think About This

Use a “trust chain” lens. A voter accepts a result only if every link holds: the roll (am I and only eligible people on it?), the campaign (was the information fair and the money clean?), the count (were the results honest?), the mandate (does my representative stay with the party I chose?) and the referee (is the Commission independent?). Rout’s piece touches all five. In an answer, name the weak link, give one example from this page, and offer one fix that does not depend on a single party’s goodwill.

Diagram-in-Words

The figure below sets out Rout’s argument: what has changed, where trust is leaking, and what he asks parties to do.

Takeaway Box

• Rout’s thesis: the logistics of Indian elections are routine; “trust has become the issue”.
• Five pressure points: the rolls, disinformation, money and cash transfers, defections, and the 2023 appointments law.
• The Economic Survey 2025-26 figure is UCT spending of about Rs 1.7 lakh crore for FY26, not a measured strain.
• The 2023 Act’s Selection Committee is the PM, the Leader of Opposition and a Union Cabinet Minister; the challenge to it is pending after the split of 23 September 2026.
• Rout’s remedy: a “collective and apolitical sit-down” of political parties to build safeguards and accountability.

Revision Flowchart

Sources: The Hindu, op-ed by Akshay Rout, 12 October 2026; Constitution of India, Article 324; Act No. 49 of 2023 (Gazette copy); Constitution of India, Tenth Schedule; T.N. Seshan v Union of India, 14 July 1995; Economic Survey 2025-26, Box II.7; Election Commission of India, Atlas of the 2024 general election; Bar and Bench report on the split order, September 2026

Source: Shine of Indian Elections: Trust, ECI and Electoral Reform — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis