Who Guards the Guardians? Inside the Election Commission’s Struggle for Control

Part 5: The Election Commission runs India’s polls with borrowed staff—controlling them is far harder than it looks.

According to Article 324(6) of the Constitution of India, it is the responsibility of the President and the Governor to provide staff to the Election Commission to carry out its work.

This means the Election Commission of India relies on employees from the Central and State governments, as well as from local self-government bodies.

Once the election programme is announced, the entire administrative machinery comes under the control of the Election Commission. The Commission also prepares the electoral rolls, makes amendments, and finalises them for the elections through these employees.

It is important to note that these employees do not belong to the Election Commission itself. They only work for it. While the Commission has authority over them, monitoring such a vast system is not as simple as it may appear. Control is exercised through the administrative hierarchy.

According to Section 30 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, civil courts are barred from intervening in election matters. This means no civil court can take up issues related to electoral rolls, election schedules, nomination papers, or the counting of votes. These matters are kept completely outside their jurisdiction.

No case can be filed in a civil court against a voter for being included in the electoral roll. Similarly, the decisions of the returning officer in such matters cannot be challenged in a civil court. Anyone with a grievance must approach the Election Commission of India instead.

Now, the question arises as to why such a provision has been made. In seeking the answer, one point becomes crucial: elections are of paramount importance in a democratic system. It is through elections that voters send their representatives to the Lok Sabha and the Legislative Assembly. These representatives, in turn, enable the formation of governments at the Centre and in the states. If anyone were to attempt to delay the electoral process through the courts, the consequences could be grave. If elections are not held on time, the question inevitably arises: How will the legislative and executive bodies of the country and the states come into being? It is for this reason that civil courts have been deliberately excluded from such matters.

Election Commission of India vs. Haryana Government

This was a landmark case in the history of the Election Commission of India. The Commission had decided to conduct by-elections in the Tauru Assembly constituency in Haryana, and a notification was issued on 18 April 1984. Shortly afterwards, the Haryana government approached the High Court, challenging the Commission’s decision. The state government argued that elections should not be held immediately, as the law and order situation in the constituency was unsatisfactory. Acting on this petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court stayed the Election Commission’s notification.

The Commission appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Supreme Court initially stayed the High Court’s order and, after a detailed hearing, went on to quash it. In its judgement, the court categorically stated that the Election Commission of India is an important autonomous constitutional body. Its functions are clearly defined in the Constitution. Accordingly, the ultimate authority to determine where and when elections are to be held rests solely with the Election Commission of India. The state government has no role in this regard.

Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, prescribes punishment for government employees who engage in misconduct during election duties. Any official found tampering with the electoral roll or wrongfully including or excluding names is liable to imprisonment and a fine, with the term of imprisonment ranging from a minimum of three months to a maximum of two years.

This provision ensures that government employees working under the Election Commission discharge their duties honestly and in strict accordance with the Act. The section further stipulates that a court may take cognisance of a complaint against such an employee only if it is filed by the Election Commission itself or by an officer under its authority.

This safeguard is consistent with Section 30 of the same Act, which bars independent action in the courts. In other words, no individual can directly approach the courts over misconduct by government employees in election work. The right rests solely with the Election Commission, which must first conduct a preliminary inquiry. If the inquiry reveals sufficient grounds, the Commission may then move the courts to initiate proceedings against the concerned employee. Thus, the law places the responsibility for disciplining erring officials firmly with the Election Commission, reinforcing its autonomy and ensuring the integrity of the electoral process. With this, we conclude the fifth and final part of our series on how India’s election system is safeguarded under the law.

(The writer is an author and a digital journalism teacher. Views personal.)