Why EC was born before the Republic

ON Constitution Day, we rightfully celebrate fundamental rights, federalism, secularism and the audacity of universal adult suffrage. Yet one of the most farsighted decisions of the Constituent Assembly rarely receives the attention it deserves. When the Constitution was adopted on November 26, 1949, Articles 324 to 329 creating the Election Commission of India (ECI) were brought into force immediately, two months before the rest of the Constitution commenced on January 26, 1950. This sequencing was not a technicality; it was a profound constitutional choice.

The framers knew that once the Constitution began to operate, India would require a government elected under its authority. The ECI, thus, had to be constituted before the Republic was born, so that the first government would derive its legitimacy not from an executive, but from a constitutionally independent referee.

There was another equally significant concern. In a federal system, it would have been natural to let each state conduct its own Assembly elections, as many federations do. But the framers rejected this model.

They feared that state governments might manipulate electoral rolls to exclude "outsiders" — those who migrated for work, study or political activity. As several members warned, a state-run system could become a tool for provincialism. A single, independent national authority was, therefore, essential to guarantee that every Indian, wherever he/she lived, would be included on an equal, non-discriminatory roll. Seventy-five years later, the framers' fears are coming true more aggressively than ever, as controversies over residency, migration and deletion of names from voters’ lists re-enter national politics.

Article 324 grants the ECI "superintendence, direction and control" over electoral rolls and elections to Parliament and state legislatures, and to the offices of President and Vice-President. Articles 325 and 326 guarantee a single general roll for all citizens and universal adult suffrage without discrimination. These provisions were not inserted as bureaucratic conveniences; they were designed as the Republic's foundational safeguards. Inclusion, fairness and independence were built into the electoral architecture from day one.

Over the decades, the Supreme Court has expanded and protected this constitutional vision. In Mohinder Singh Gill (1978), Justice VR Krishna Iyer described Article 324 as a plenary power enabling the EC to act in "areas left unoccupied by legislation", ensuring the purity of elections. In AC Jose (1984), the court clarified that the commission's powers supplement rather than supplant statutory law, setting a balanced constitutional rhythm: where law is silent, the commission must act; where law speaks, the ECI must obey.

In TN Seshan (1995), the court held that free and fair elections are part of the Constitution's basic structure and require an election commission "fully insulated from executive influence." Later decisions such as ADR (2002) and PUCL (2013) reinforced the voter's right to know and the right to choose NOTA, placing the citizen at the centre of the process.

A nuance often missed deserves emphasis. In Subramanian Swamy vs Election Commission of India (2013), the SC recognised the VVPAT paper trail as an "indispensable requirement" for free and fair elections. But the court did not order an immediate nationwide rollout. It commended the commission's initiative, permitted its proposal for a phased introduction and directed the Union government to ensure funds. This reflected the correct constitutional balance: technological transparency combined with respect for institutional judgement.

The ECI’s authority is constitutional, but its credibility flows from practice — millions of acts performed by ordinary officials under extraordinary scrutiny. I learned this early. As an IAS probationer, I was posted as the presiding officer of a single polling booth while my colleagues were given supervisory positions.

We sought to make elections more inclusive, transparent and professional. SVEEP, our voter-education programme, treated citizens as partners rather than passive recipients of instructions. National Voters Day, launched in 2011, turned the enrolment of 18-year-olds into a nationwide civic rite. These two reforms have been responsible for record turnouts, the latest being Bihar.

We strengthened expenditure-monitoring, tackled paid news through MCMC (Media Certification and Monitoring Committee) mechanisms and took actions such as covering publicly funded statutes during elections — not because symbolism mattered more than substance, but because neutrality must be practised, and must be seen to be practised.

As India approaches its 18th General Election, the constitutional design faces renewed pressures. Technology must inspire confidence, with EVMs, VVPATs, audits and dashboards working together to assure verifiability. Campaign finance reform must move towards real-time disclosures. Electoral rolls, machine-readable, must maintain a balance: open and accessible for every eligible voter, but protected from manipulation and arbitrary deletion.

Procedural independence remains the bedrock. Appointment processes and tenure security are not privileges; they are structural requirements for neutrality. A referee cannot be dependent on the very executive it must regulate. Whatever reform model Parliament adopts, it must meet a single test: Will the average voter believe that the Election Commission can say "no" to power?

Inclusion remains unfinished business. Migrant workers, persons with disabilities, first-time voters, women and the elderly who face mobility barriers must all find the electoral process welcoming. Prisoners who, ironically, can contest, must be allowed to vote. A democracy's legitimacy depends not just on who wins, but on who is allowed in.

On this Constitution Day, we must remember why our founders activated Part XV ahead of the Republic. They were ensuring that when the people of India voted for the first time, they would do so under the watch of an institution designed to be independent of the government it would help create. That insight remains as vital today as it was 75 years ago.

A democracy succeeds when its referee is trusted. The Election Commission must ensure it upholds the nation's trust.