Indian Democracy in 100 Notes · ⚖️ Theme 4: Judiciary
Courts and elections: what judges can and cannot decide
Elections are run by the Election Commission of India, not by courts. Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction, and control of elections to Parliament, state legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President in the Commission. Article 326 provides for adult suffrage. Courts enter the picture in defined ways: they interpret election law, review the legality of Commission actions, decide election petitions challenging a result, and protect the constitutional conditions for free and fair elections. They do not choose winners by popularity, recount votes on demand without a legal basis, or run the election machinery themselves.
Article 329 also limits court interference in electoral matters. It bars questioning the validity of a law on delimitation or the allotment of seats in a constituency, and says no election shall be called into question except by an election petition presented as provided by law. In practice, that means a losing candidate who alleges corrupt practice, improper acceptance of nominations, or other grounds in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 must file an election petition before the High Court, with appeal to the Supreme Court, rather than asking a court to overturn a result in general proceedings.
Technology cases illustrate the boundary. In Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India (2013), the Supreme Court pressed for voter-verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) slips alongside electronic voting machines (EVMs), so a voter can verify the vote cast. In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, decided on 26 April 2024, the Court rejected pleas for a return to paper ballots and for 100% VVPAT verification, while retaining safeguards including sample verification. Supporters of the EVM-VVPAT system argue that it is tested, auditable, and efficient; critics argue for wider verification and greater transparency. The Court's role, in both lines of argument, is to test whether the system meets constitutional and statutory requirements — not to declare a party's political claims true or false.
Key takeaways
- The Election Commission conducts elections under Article 324; courts review legality and decide election petitions.
- Article 329 channels challenges to results into election petitions, rather than general court challenges.
- In 2024, the Supreme Court retained EVM-VVPAT voting while rejecting demands for paper ballots and 100% VVPAT counting.
Why it matters for civil studies: Courts and elections show how democracy is protected by procedure — who runs elections, who can challenge them, and on what grounds.
Discussion question: Should courts order wider VVPAT verification if it increases public trust, even if the law does not require it?
Fact-checked copy, 1 November 2026. Disputed claims are attributed in the text; moving topics should be re-checked at the time of reading.