[Marxistindia] CPI(M) Note to the Election Commission of India

[news from the cpi(m)]

May 10, 2025

Press Release

A CPI(M) delegation consisting of General Secretary M.A. Baby, Polit 
Bureau Member Nilotpal Basu and Central Secretariat Member Muralidharan 
met the three member Election Commission of India today. The Note 
submitted to the ECI is being released to the media. The meeting was 
held at the initiative of the ECI.

(Muralidharan)
For CPI(M) Central Committee Office

*****


CPI(M)’s Submissions to the  Election Commission of India
May 10, 2025


The initiative taken by the Election Commission of India to invite 
recognised political parties for discussions is welcome. We hope this 
engagement and consultations with political parties will become a 
regular exercise.

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) has been raising several 
pertinent issues concerning the conduct of elections as also the larger 
question of safeguarding and deepening democracy, for quite some time 
now. The submissions hereunder are more or less reiterations of what we 
have been expressing, particularly, during the course of the past few 
years.

Even while we do appreciate the constraints of the ECI in as far as its 
jurisdiction is concerned, we also expect that it will exercise its 
powers and authority to positively influence policies to the extent 
possible. Therefore, we are taking the liberty of also bringing the 
larger issues to the fore for discussions.

Electoral reforms, the CPI(M) understands, should be comprehensive and 
address concerns about EVMs, electoral funding, corruption, corporate 
control, partial proportional representation, non-partisan and 
independent nature of the election agencies, role of media etc.

Partial Proportional Representation

The first-past-the-post system, is proving to be increasingly outmoded 
in reflecting popular opinion with increasing disconnect between popular 
votes polled by political parties and the number of seats they secure in 
legislatures.

Experience shows that in most of the elections conducted of late, there 
is a huge disparity in the ratio of vote share and seat share.  There 
are instances galore where parties enjoying significant vote share fail 
to get a proportionate share of seats and parties with lesser vote share 
getting more seats.

In 2014 for the first time a party, the BJP, with a vote share of just 
31 per cent won more than half the number of seats in the Lok Sabha 
elections. As opposed to it, the Congress with 19.3 per cent votes got 
just 44 seats. In the 2024 LS elections, the BJP secured 240 seats with 
36.56 per cent votes, while the Congress with a mere increase of 1.89 
per cent won an additional 55 seats as compared to 2014.

If we look at some states:

In Uttar Pradesh in the 2024 LS elections, the BSP got 9.39 per cent of 
votes but did not win a single seat, while the Congress with 9.46 won 6 
seats.

In Odisha, the BJP with 45.34 per cent won 20 seats while the BJD with 
37.53 per cent did not win a single seat. The Congress with 12.52 per 
cent won only 1 seat.

In Andhra Pradesh, the YSRCP polling 39.61 per cent could win only 4 
seats while the TDP polling less at 37.79 per cent won four times more 
seats (16).

In Delhi, while the BJP won all the 7 seats polling 54.35 per cent, the 
AAP with 24.17 and INC with 18.91 percent failed to open their account.

In the 2024 assembly elections, in Andhra Pradesh the YSRCP with 39.37 
per cent was confined to 11 seats while the TDP with roughly 6 
additional percentage points won 135 seats. The BJP with a mere 2.83 per 
cent got 8 seats. In Odisha, though the BJD polled slightly more than 
the BJP, the seat share shows a picture in sharp contrast. While it 
could win only 51 seats the BJP got 78.

We are sure these instances would suffice to underline this point.

It is also apparent that smaller parties who have a broad base across 
constituencies may fail to win even a single seat even if their vote 
share is significant. There is also the possibility of a dramatic 
alteration in the number of seats if there is even a slight change in 
vote share.

It is in an effort to set right these anomalies and the distortion of 
people’s mandate to some extent that we have been advocating for 
proportional representation with a partial list system.

In this context, we may refer to one of the recommendations made by the 
Law Commission earlier. It had suggested that while the existing 543 
seats of the Lok Sabha continue to be filled through direct elections, 
the number of seats in the lower house be increased by an additional 25 
per cent which can be filled by proportional representation following 
the list system.  A similar expansion should take place in the state 
assemblies as well. This can be tried in the first phase; subsequently 
the share of seats in the proportional representation system can be 
expanded.

There are many issues and concerns that arise out of the proposed 
delimitation exercise and the manner in which it is sought to be 
enforced, which we are not going into here.

Opposition to Simultaneous Elections

The CPI(M) is  opposed to the `One Nation, One Election’  (ONOE) 
concept, which we strongly feel is aimed towards the creation of a 
centralized unitarian State.

The ONOE proposal amounts to truncating the life of some legislative 
assemblies to align them with the Lok Sabha election. Further, if a 
state government falls and the assembly is to be dissolved, then the 
mid-term election held will be only for the remaining term of the 
assembly.

The ONOE model undermines two basic features of the Constitution – 
democracy and federalism. The Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati 
case, was categorical that Parliament does not have the power to alter 
the basic structure of the Constitution.

On Election Promises

The Supreme Court in the Shashanka J. Sreedhara v. B.Z. Zameer Ahmed 
Khan case while rejecting the argument that promises made by a political 
party in its manifesto, which result in direct or indirect financial aid 
to the public, should be considered a corrupt practice, observed that 
political parties must specify the sources from which they will meet the 
budgetary expenses for their manifesto promises.

On the surface though it may seem to underscore the importance of 
transparency and accountability in the electoral process, it in fact 
strikes against the right of political parties to freely express their 
policies, programmes and promises to the people.   Any infringement on 
the right of expression by intervention by any authority, body or agency 
will cut at the root of the political party system and free and fair 
elections.

We have earlier also expressed our opposition to the enactment of any 
law for this purpose. These are already provided for in the `General 
Conduct’ part of the `Model Code of Conduct for the Guidance of 
Political Parties and Candidates’.

Role of Money Power

An equally important issue is of the increasing influence of money in 
determining the outcome of elections. It is a matter of grave concern 
that increasingly people with more money at their disposal are taking 
their seats in elected bodies that determine policies and the future of 
the people. According to a report of the Association for Democratic 
Reforms (ADR) a whopping 93 per cent of the winning candidates in the 
2024 Lok Sabha elections are “crorepatis”!

Money power is disturbing the level-playing field and vitiating the 
whole process of free and fair elections which is the essential feature 
of a democratic polity.  It is evident that financial superiority 
translates into electoral advantage and so parties and candidates who 
have better financial resources have a greater chance of winning 
elections.  There is widespread prevalence of black money, bribery and 
quid-pro-quo benefits which helps such candidates fund their campaign.

The Law Commission of India’s Report on Electoral Reforms was scathing 
while noting: “Unregulated, or under-regulated, election financing leads 
to two types of capture: the first involves cases where the 
industry/private entities use money to ensure less stringent regulation, 
and the money used to finance elections eventually leads to favourable 
policies.  The second involves cases of ‘deeper capture’, where through 
their disproportionate and self-serving influence; corporations capture 
not just regulators, but also the views of ordinary citizens and what 
they think of as ‘public interest’.”

The Supreme Court, in February 2024, while holding the Electoral Bond 
scheme unconstitutional held that the scheme is “manifestly arbitrary” 
because unlimited funding can result in the “unrestrained influence of 
companies on the electoral process” and that it violates the principle 
of free and fair elections. It also ruled that the scheme is not “fool 
proof” and creates a quid pro quo arrangement where the contributor may 
have enhanced “access to legislators” which may “translate into 
influence over policy-making.”

State Funding

In many countries, the role of big money in elections and the associated 
incidents of bribery, capture, lobbying and institutional corruption has 
been sought to be reduced through public funding or State funding of 
elections.

In Germany, for example, there is state funding of parties, from a 
corpus which is apportioned on the basis of seats and vote-share of the 
parties in the Centre and state legislatures in the previous elections. 
Apart from this, indirect subsidies like ensuring time on television 
news proportionately and fairly, across political parties are also 
given.

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) stands for partial State funding 
of elections as recommended by the Dinesh Goswami and Indrajit Gupta 
Committees’.  Partial State funding in kind will provide a “financial 
floor” to parties and candidates.

Revise Ceiling on Expenditure by Political Parties

Connected to this is the question of absence of any ceiling on expenses 
incurred by a political party.

Whereas Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act imposes a 
ceiling on the election expenses of candidates, there is no such limit 
for the expenditure that a political party may incur for general party 
propaganda and not for any particular candidate.  As long as there is no 
ceiling on a party’s expenditure during elections, the ceiling fixed for 
candidates is meaningless. Appropriate amendments in the Representation 
of the People Act should be made to fix a limit on the expenditure 
incurred by political parties as in the case of UK and some other 
countries.

Further, another shortcoming of Section 77 of the Representation of the 
People Act is that it imposes a ceiling on election expenditure of a 
candidate only from the date of nomination to the date of declaration of 
results. However, the actual timeline for incurring the expenditure is 
much longer. Appropriate amendments have to be made to correct this 
anomaly.

Under the pretext of threat perception and security certain high ranking 
VIPs are permitted the use of state owned aircraft and other modes of 
transportation, free of cost. This gives then an undue advantage over 
their opponents.

Role of the Media

It is obvious that cartels and oligarchies in media ownership help 
ruling parties. This is more specifically pronounced in the post-2014 
scenario in India. This adversely impacts holding of free and fair 
polls. There are also instances of witch-hunting and character 
assassination of political parties and candidates.  Appropriate 
regulatory mechanisms are necessary in this sphere including for social 
media, which plays a much more influential role nowadays.

After the opening of airwaves to the private sector, it is the private 
media that dominates the news space. It would therefore be appropriate 
if recognized political parties are allotted time on private media 
channels for placing their views to ensure non-partisan coverage and 
ensuring a level playing field for all parties.

EVMs & VVPATs

The CPI(M) has in the past, supported EVMs and also favoured 
introduction of VVPATs in the midst of increasing doubts in public 
perception about the vulnerability of EVMs.  Doubts still persist among 
sections of the public.

As per the current sequence in which the machines are placed: first is 
the ballot unit, followed by the VVAPT and last in the sequence is the 
Control Unit. Once a voter exercises their franchise, their choice is 
displayed in the VVAPT. But there are doubts over whether it is their 
choice that is actually recorded in the Control Unit. We and many others 
also have been suggesting that the VVAPT should be placed at the end 
after the control unit. This would clear doubts that exist about the 
integrity of the process.

This is important because the introduction of the VVPAT has added a 
crucial and unique vulnerability to the system. In the pre-VVPAT days, 
the biggest defence of the sacrosanct nature of the EVM was on the 
ground that the chip in the EVM machine was unaware of the names and 
symbols of the candidates before it was placed for verification. VVPAT 
has changed all this and introduces the element of prior knowledge of 
the precise information about names of candidates, their respective 
symbols and the order of the names that appears on the Ballot Unit. In 
terms of actual operation, other factual evidence has shown that the 
introduction of the names, symbols and order on the Ballot Unit is 
interlinked with the operation of the VVPAT with the involvement of 
private agencies. Therefore, if the VVPAT is manipulated and is 
subsequently connected to the Control Unit, it is possible that the 
manipulation is reflected in recording the vote. In this light, we would 
suggest:

a)   Re-working of the sequence of placement of the three units, 
ensuring that the voters’ choice exercised in the Ballot Unit goes into 
the Control Unit of the EVM where it is recorded and then routed to the 
VVPAT.
b)   A hundred percent matching of VVPAT output with the EVM recorded 
data for each booth.
c)  Reframe guidelines to ensure that adequate safeguards are put in 
place and private vendors are eliminated from any design, manufacturing, 
maintenance and repairing activities related to the operation of EVM and 
VVPAT.

Discrepancy in Polling Data

There have been allegations of discrepancies with regard to polling 
data. The delay on the part of the ECI to update figures on its website 
on time has contributed to this in no small measure. After the first 
phase of the 2024 Lok Sabha election it took 11 days for the ECI to 
update this data on its website and four days in the second phase. 
Suspicions get stronger when there is a discrepancy between the initial 
data released at the end of polling and the final data released after 
delay of a number of days.

The ECI had tentatively estimated that around 60 per cent of the 
registered voters had exercised their franchise in the first and second 
phases of the election as of 7.00 p.m. at the end of the polling on 
April 19 and April 26 respectively. In the final data that it uploaded 
on April 30, the figures touched 66.14 and 66.71 per cent respectively.

While it is nobody’s contention that some variation is not possible, it 
would in the fitness of things if rules can be amended to facilitate the 
uploading of Part 1 of form 17C on the ECI website, immediately after 
the conclusion of polling in a constituency. Also once the results are 
announced Part 2 may also be uploaded. Giving exact figures instead of 
percentages would be advisable to put to rest any doubts regarding the 
same.

In this connection, aspersions were also cast over the disproportionate 
surge in the number of voters in Maharashtra in a period of less than 
six months. When elections to the state assembly were held in November 
2024 the number of registered voters was 9,77,93,350 whereas during the 
General Elections held earlier it was 9,28,90,445.

Model Code of Conduct

Non-enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct and the advisories issued 
by the ECI from time to time has been a matter of concern. It was 
reported that during the course of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the ECI 
received thousands of complaints through its cVigil app.

Complaints that pertained to illegal hoardings, banners, distribution of 
liquor, gifts etc., which were more or less addressed. Where the ECI was 
seen faltering is on the question of its inability of restraining or 
punishing those political parties and leaders who were making appeals 
based on religion and caste as also the misuse of places of worship for 
campaign and propaganda.

What starkly stood out was the initial refusal of the Commission to even 
take cognisance of the multiple complaints lodged against Prime Minister 
Modi for his blatantly communal campaign despite its own advisory about 
plummeting levels of public discourse.

There have been several instances of the misuse of office by the Prime 
Minister, the Home Minister and others during the course of elections. 
National symbols are also being blatantly misused for partisan purposes. 
Surely, one will witness the spectacle of the exploitation of ‘operation 
sindoor’ for electoral gains by the ruling party.

Timely enforcement of the MCC has to be ensured to restore the 
credibility of the ECI. The ECI should not only be impartial, but should 
  also be seen as such by political parties and the public at large.

Criminal Antecedents

That the Supreme Court directed disclosure of “criminal antecedents” by 
contesting candidates has failed to influence people’s choices is 
evident. What it has led to is escalation in the expenditure incurred by 
both candidates and political parties. For the CPI(M) much of this 
disclosure is for cases filed on account of their political activities 
and have nothing to do with serious crimes. For parties like us and 
others with inadequate funds at their disposal it has become a big 
burden, more so when this disclosure has to be made in multiple mediums 
and several times.

This only helps media houses, who resort to “surge pricing” during 
elections to enrich themselves.

According to the ADR, out of the 543 winning candidates, 251 (46 per 
cent) have declared criminal cases against themselves. Of these 170 (31 
per cent) have been booked for serious crimes like rape, murder, 
kidnapping etc.

It is evident that the Court’s intention of informing the voters is 
misplaced. The choice of a voter is not because of their lack of 
information. The reasons for their choosing those accused of murder, 
rape or other serious offences lie elsewhere.
Given this background, the ECI should file a review petition before the 
Supreme Court seeking revision of its order in the light of the 
experience gained since then.

Reforming the ECI

The CPI(M) believes that the independence and autonomy of the Election 
Commission is a key to strengthen its role as an independent 
Constitutional body. It is in keeping with this understanding that the 
Party welcomed the Supreme Court verdict of 2023. A Constitution Bench, 
in its judgment, said that the Chief Election Commissioner and the 
Election Commissioners should be appointed by a committee consisting of 
the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the 
Chief Justice of India.

However, this verdict of the apex court was undermined by the government 
by passing a legislation, by which the Chief Justice of India was 
replaced by “a Union Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Prime 
Minister”.  This ensures that the majority opinion of the Executive will 
always prevail.  This, we strongly believe, destroys the impartiality 
and the independence of the Election Commission.

The independence and autonomy of the ECI will have to be tempered with 
the need for its accountability. There were concerns over its conduct of 
the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and erosion of its non-partisan 
credibility. This has become so pronounced that even some of the former 
Chief Election Commissioners have openly expressed their concern.

This needs to be addressed and rectified.




M.A Baby, General Secretary
Nilotpal Basu, Member, Polit Bureau
Muralidharan, Member, Central Secretariat