In the light of recent controversy regarding the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVM), what are the challenges before the Election Commission of India to ensure the trustworthiness of elections in India?
Approach · directive: “what”
What it asks · List the challenges before the Election Commission in keeping elections trusted (technical, institutional, legal and perceptual) in the light of the EVM debate, and the steps that meet them.
It asks 2 things — answer each
- Set the context: what the EVM controversy revealed about trust in the electoral process
- What: the challenges before the Election Commission in ensuring trustworthy elections — perceptual, technical, legal-institutional and wider integrity threats
Open with · Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the Election Commission; the EVM controversy showed that a poll must be fair and also be seen to be fair.
Cover
- Perception gap: tampering claims spread online faster than rebuttals; the 2017 open EVM challenge drew few takers, yet suspicion persisted.
- Technical assurance: one-time-programmable chips, randomised allotment, first-level checks, sealing and strong rooms must be visibly followed and audited.
- Paper trail: VVPATs followed Subramanian Swamy v. ECI (2013); since then, the April 2019 order raised slip counts to five booths per Assembly segment.
- Institutional credibility: Section 61A of the RP Act backs machines, but executive-only appointment of Commissioners (until the 2023 law) invited doubts (Law Commission, 255th Report).
- Beyond machines: money power, paid news, criminalisation and defective electoral rolls erode trust as much as EVMs.
- Way forward: a collegium for appointments (Law Commission 2015), wider VVPAT audits, open testing, third-party audits, clean rolls and firm MCC enforcement.
Close with · SDG 16.7 calls for responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making; verifiable machines, an independent Commission and clear communication keep elections above suspicion.
Add value (verified)
- Article 324(1) vests the superintendence, direction and control of electoral rolls and of all elections to Parliament, the State Legislatures and the offices of President and Vice-President in the Election Commission.The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Article 324(1) — Legislative Department ↗“preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held under this Constitution”
- The Law Commission (255th Report, 2015) noted that Election Commissioners are appointed with no collegium and no opposition role, and recommended a three-member collegium of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India.Law Commission of India, Report No. 255: Electoral Reforms (March 2015) ↗“should be made by the President in consultation with a three-member collegium or selection committee, consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition of the Lok Sabha (or the leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha in terms of numerical strength) and the Chief Justice of India.”
- The Law Commission observed that the current appointment of Election Commissioners involves no collegium and no opposition.Law Commission of India, Report No. 255: Electoral Reforms (March 2015) ↗“who then recommends a name to the President. 218 Thus, there is no concept of collegium and no involvement of the opposition.”
- SDG target 16.7 calls for responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Goal 16 targets ↗“Target 16.7 Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2018, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 229words · Minimalist IAS
Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the Election Commission. The EVM controversy showed that a poll must be not only fair but seen to be fair.
Challenges to the trustworthiness of elections
- Perception gap: tampering claims spread online faster than rebuttals; the 2017 open EVM challenge drew few takers, yet doubts persisted.
- Technical assurance: secure hardware persuades only if safeguards are visibly followed.
- Paper trail: VVPATs followed Subramanian Swamy v. ECI (2013); since then (April 2019) the Court raised slip counts to five booths per Assembly segment, yet malfunctions fuel demands for more.
- Institutional credibility: Section 61A of the RP Act, 1951 backs voting machines, but in 2018 the executive alone chose Commissioners (since then, a 2023 law added the Leader of the Opposition).
- Beyond machines: money power, paid news, criminalisation and defective electoral rolls erode trust as much as EVMs.
EVM trust chain: One-time-programmable chips; Randomised allotment; First-level checks; Sealing and strong rooms; VVPAT slip count
Way forward
- Independent appointments: the Law Commission's 255th Report (2015) proposed a collegium of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice.
- Audit and clean rolls: wider VVPAT audits, open testing, third-party technical audits, faster roll clean-up and firm Model Code enforcement.
Free elections anchor SDG 16.7, responsive and representative decision-making; verifiable machines and an independent, candid Commission keep the verdict above suspicion.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
