21 Nov 2025 : Institutional autonomy vs democratic accountability

Editorial 2: Institutional autonomy vs democratic accountability

Context:

Parliamentary scrutiny of the Election Commission is essential to ensure transparency, accountability, and integrity in India’s electoral process.

Introduction:

A robust democracy rests on transparent institutions and effective parliamentary oversight. As the constitutional authority responsible for conducting free and fair elections, the Election Commission must remain both independent and accountable. Parliamentary debate is essential to uphold public trust, ensure institutional checks and balances, and safeguard the integrity of the electoral process.

Key Constitutional & Institutional Context:

Election Commission of India

• Established under Article 324 of the Constitution—responsible for the superintendence, direction and control of elections to Parliament, state legislatures and the offices of President and Vice-President.
• Performs executive, administrative and quasi-judicial functions.

Parliamentary Oversight

• Parliament holds the “power of the purse” as laid down in Article 112-117 regarding Union budget and demand for grants.
• The budget of the ECI is approved by Parliament through the Ministry of Law and Justice, making the ECI subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
• Rule 169 of the Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure allows discussions on matters of general public interest—including constitutional authorities.

Core Issues Raised:

• Can Parliament discuss the Election Commission?
  • The Opposition argues that there is no restriction in parliamentary rules against discussing the functioning of ECI.
  • There are historical precedents where parliamentary debates on ECI took place—such as postponement of elections and delay in bye-elections.
• Concerns over Institutional Independence:
  • The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 changed the selection process by including members nominated by the government, which raised criticism that autonomy of the ECI may weaken.
  • Critics argue that independent electoral institutions are essential for political neutrality and citizen trust.​​​​​​​
• Accountability vs. Autonomy Debate:​​​​​​​
  • Constitutional bodies must remain independent, but independence does not imply exemption from scrutiny.
  • Healthy parliamentary debate strengthens public confidence in institutions.

Significance:

• Strengthening Democratic Accountability: Parliament provides the constitutional platform to question institutions that shape governance. Open discussions on the ECI ensure that electoral processes remain transparent and answerable to the people through their representatives.
• Safeguarding Electoral Integrity: The Election Commission administers the world’s largest democratic exercise. Parliamentary scrutiny helps preserve public confidence in electoral fairness, neutrality and procedural integrity.
• Preserving Checks and Balances: Oversight prevents concentration of power within the executive. Debate on ECI functioning reinforces constitutional balance and prevents institutional erosion or capture.
• Enhancing Citizen Trust: Citizens participate meaningfully in democracy only when they trust that elections are free, fair and impartial. Parliamentary accountability reinforces credibility of the electoral system.
• Preventing Institutional Overreach: Independent institutions require insulation but also regulated accountability. Discussion in Parliament ensures that autonomy does not transform into unregulated authority.
• Boosting Reform Momentum: Open debate enables proposals on electoral reforms—state funding of elections, VVPAT transparency, regulation on campaign finance and misuse of digital platforms.

Challenges:

Way Forward / Suggested Reforms:

• Institutionally Independent Appointment Mechanism: Establish a bipartisan and judicially supported selection committee for Election Commissioners—similar to the Lokpal model—to reduce executive dominance.
• Secure and Independent Budgeting: Provide a charged expenditure model or multi-year financial allocation, similar to the CAG or Supreme Court, to reduce dependence on the executive.
• Structured Parliamentary Oversight: Introduce a Standing Committee on Electoral Affairs for periodic review of ECI functioning, electoral preparedness and implementation of reforms.
• Transparent and Publicly Accessible Decision-Making: Mandate publication of detailed reports on decisions such as code-of-conduct violations, VVPAT audits, and internal guidelines to strengthen confidence and minimise controversy.
• Legal and Procedural Reforms: Revisit outdated electoral laws related to campaign finance, misuse of state machinery, paid news, social media misinformation, and criminalisation of politics.
• Non-partisan Engagement: Conduct all-party consultations and expert-led hearings to depoliticise electoral reform debates and ensure consensus-based improvements.
• Technology & Voter-Centric Strengthening: Introduce advanced verification tools, independent digital audits, and stronger measures for clean electoral rolls and voter accessibility.
• Awareness & Civic Participation: Promote electoral literacy campaigns and public transparency tools to empower citizens as stakeholders in the democratic process.

Conclusion:

Parliament represents the voice of citizens, and institutions like the Election Commission ensure the legitimacy of that voice. Accountability and autonomy are complementary, not conflicting. A transparent discussion on the role and functioning of the ECI strengthens democracy and protects the sanctity of elections. Engaging in parliamentary scrutiny is a constitutional responsibility, not a political concession. As India approaches future elections, safeguarding institutional integrity is essential for maintaining the trust of 1.4 billion citizens.