Press Note: ADR and NEW organized a Stakeholder Discussion on Electoral and Political Reforms: Issues, Challenges and Recommendations on 10th March 2026 at IIC, New Delhi

0 views

Skip to first unread message

ADR India

unread,

5:09 AM (15 hours ago) 5:09 AM

to national-el...@googlegroups.com, national...@googlegroups.com

Press Release

11^th March, 2026

Stakeholder Discussion on Electoral & Political Reforms: Issues, Challenges & Recommendations

New Delhi: The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and National Election Watch (NEW) organized a Stakeholder Discussion on Electoral and Political Reforms at Multipurpose Hall (Kamaladevi Complex), India International Centre, New Delhi on 10^th March, 2026 to deliberate on some of the most pressing issues in the electoral politics of India.

The discussion saw an array of members of political parties, ex-CECs, lawyers, academics and leading thinkers in this area participating in the discussion along with students, journalists and members from various civil society groups. The objective of this event was to compile some concrete reform proposals based on the discussion between the stakeholders for public dissemination and submission to relevant authorities for implementation. The panelists delivered value-added discussions at this opportune event and answered multiple questions from the audience.

At the beginning of the event, ADR released a report on 'Political Finance in India: Assessment and Recommendations'. The report is a joint publication of ADR and the University of Melbourne's Electoral Regulation Research Network (ERRN). For the complete report on the ADR website, please click here. It is also available on the ERRN website here.

A more detailed press release containing the key findings and recommendations of the aforementioned report will be shared tomorrow.

The event had three sessions namely, "Criminalization of politics: Implications for electoral integrity", from 10:00 AM to 11:45 AM; "Rebuilding Transparency in Political Finance Post-Electoral Bonds", from 12 PM to 01:45 PM and "The Impact of Election Commissioners’ Appointment Procedures on Electoral Credibility" from 3:00 PM to 04:45 PM. The agenda of the event can be accessed here.

Maj. Gen. Anil Verma (Retd.), Head – ADR, opened the stakeholder discussion by welcoming the guests and explaining the rationale behind the topics selected for the sessions of the event. Maj. Gen. Verma spoke of the role played by ADR in educating the youth as future voters of the country and emphasized the need for youth engagement with electoral politics. In this context, he also spoke about the need to vote for the right people. He added that there is lack of political will in addressing the issue of criminalization and money power in electoral politics as well as urgent need for implementation of pending electoral and political reforms in the constantly transforming nature of democratic politics in India.

Session 1 on "Criminalization of politics: Implications for electoral integrity" was chaired by Prof Trilochan Sastry, Chairman, Founder Member & Trustee –ADR & NEW. The speakers of the session were: Mr Om Prakash Rawat (former CEC of India), Mr Anish Gawande (National Spokesperson, NCP (SP)), Mr Ghanshyam Tewari (National Spokesperson, Samajwadi Party) and Ms Priyanka Kakkar (Chief National Spokesperson, AAP).

The following are some of the key reform proposals that emerged from the first session at the end of the discussion between the speakers and their interaction with the audience during the Question & Answer session.

Mr Om Prakash Rawat (former CEC Election Commission of India):

Solutions must be devised to keep the rising number of candidates with criminal antecedents under check.
At the same time, the systems of investigation, prosecution, and adjudication should be strengthened by inducting brilliant young legal minds.
Young graduates from National Law Universities and similar legal institutions should be encouraged to join and contribute to these systems.
Institutions should aim to achieve high standards of efficiency and conviction rates, as demonstrated by the National Investigation Agency.
Before introducing new remedies to address the criminalisation of politics, institutions must first be strengthened to avoid solutions that may worsen the situation

Mr Anish Gawande (National Spokesperson, NCP (SP)):

Solutions to the criminalisation of politics must be very carefully considered, as many criminal cases in politics can be politically motivated.
Avoid blanket criminalisation of politicians, and examine the nature and context of charges before forming conclusions.
Increase legal awareness among voters so that citizens examine candidate affidavits and case details available through the website of Association for Democratic Reforms.
Differentiate between serious crimes and minor or protest-related charges, which are often used during elections to shape public perception.
Recognise and address the political misuse of FIRs and criminal charges that may be filed without merit.
Undertake a comprehensive review and strengthening of the judiciary and lower courts, instead of creating special fast-track courts only for politicians.
Avoid giving politicians special legal privileges, ensuring that justice reforms apply equally to all citizens.
Reconsider provisions such as the 130th Constitutional Amendment that allows disqualification at the stage of arrest or detention.
Ensure that laws addressing criminalisation of politics do not end up suppressing dissent or discouraging young people from participating in politics.

Mr Ghanshyam Tiwari (National Spokesperson, Samajwadi Party):

Use the power of data and AI to make political information about candidates and representatives easily accessible to citizens. People can use this information to find out who is running for elections in their area and if they have any criminal or corruption cases against them.
Build grassroots civic institutions in every constituency, modelled on the work of the Association for Democratic Reforms, to strengthen democratic accountability.
Encourage citizen-led awareness and communication campaigns at the grassroots level so that voters actively use available information about politicians. This could mean strengthening local civic organisations that are independent of political parties and empowered by data to monitor politics.
Promote greater political participation of women, backward communities, and minorities through empowered grassroots organisations.
Focus on structural reforms such as the Women’s Reservation Bill to significantly increase women’s participation in legislatures.

Ms Priyanka Kakkar (Chief National Spokesperson, AAP):

Ensure investigation agencies work independently and not under political pressure.
Penalise investigation officers for wrongful or baseless investigations, particularly in serious cases. Make them accountable when charges filed by them are later found to be false.
Encourage more educated and professional people to enter politics.
Promote greater participation of women in politics.
Encourage young people to speak about and participate in politics instead of staying away from it.
Ensure greater accountability of politicians for their actions and governance failures.

Session 2 on "Rebuilding Transparency in Political Finance Post-Electoral Bonds" was chaired by Dr Ajit Ranade, Founder Member & Trustee–ADR & NEW. The speakers of the session were: Mr Manish Tewari (Member of the Lok Sabha, INC), Mr Saurabh Bhardwaj (President, AAP-Delhi Unit), Dr Gumma Thanuja Rani (Member of the Lok Sabha, YSRCP), Dr Niranjan Sahoo (Senior Fellow, ORF) and Mr Venkatesh Nayak (Director - Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI)).

The recommendations from this session are:

Mr Manish Tewari (Member of the Lok Sabha, INC):

Recognise that electoral financing is a subset of the broader financing of the political system.
Encourage greater political maturity and stronger self-regulation within political parties with regard to their financial practices.
Explore solutions that insulate private funding from undue political influence, including consideration of alternative models such as crowdfunding and public funding for political parties.
Strengthen the role of the electorate in holding political parties accountable for their financial practices.
Recognise that the informal economy plays a significant role in political financing, making transparency reforms more complex.

Dr Gumma Thanuja Rani (Member of the Lok Sabha, YSRCP):

Ensure transparency in electoral processes both before and after elections.
Address discrepancies in election-related data and polling figures released by authorities.
Re-examine aspects of the electoral voting system, including the possibility of reintroducing ballot voting alongside the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
Recognise that election expenditure has increased significantly and requires greater scrutiny.
Introduce caps on corporate funding to political parties.
Bring political parties under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to enhance transparency and accountability.

Mr Saurabh Bharadwaj (President, AAP-Delhi Unit):

Acknowledge the potential link between corporate political contributions and the granting of permits or concessions for the extraction of natural resources.
Identify and investigate individuals or entities involved in corrupt political financing practices.
Strengthen nation's democratic institutions that may have been undermined by undue political and corporate influence.
Introduce clear limits on corporate contributions to political parties.
Establish caps on the total expenditure of political parties during election campaigns.
If public financing of elections is introduced, prohibit corporations from making financial contributions to political parties.
Address the concern that many donors are reluctant to make transparent (declared) contributions due to fear of political repercussions or pressure.

Dr Niranjan Sahoo (Senior Fellow, ORF):

Strengthen the regulatory framework governing political finance and enhance mechanisms for effective enforcement.
Promote reforms to democratize the internal functioning of political parties and improve the transparency and accountability of their funding mechanisms.
Address the growing asymmetry in political financing, particularly the disproportionate influence of large corporate donations.
Recognize that while state funding is not a magic bullet, it can serve as an important instrument for improving fairness and reducing inequalities in political finance.

Mr Venkatesh Nayak (Director - Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI):

Use the Right to Information (RTI) Act more effectively to monitor political financing and election expenditure in India.
Publish a comprehensive public list of expenditure-sensitive parliamentary constituencies across all states and Union Territories, along with the four reports prepared by Expenditure Observers prior to the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct.
Ensure the availability of clear, accessible, and regularly updated data on political funding and election expenditure, and hold election authorities accountable for the timely publication of these financial reports.
Address inconsistencies and discrepancies in campaign finance data and ensure the dissemination of reliable and accurate information, enabling citizens to make informed democratic choices.

Session 3 on "The Impact of Election Commissioners’ Appointment Procedures on Electoral Credibility" was chaired by Dr Vipul Mudgal, Trustee - ADR & NEW. The speakers of the session were: Hon'ble Mr Justice Madan B Lokur (Chairperson, UN Internal Justice Council and Former Judge, Supreme Court of India), Mr Ashok Lavasa (former Election Commissioner of India), Mr Sasikanth Senthil (Member of the Lok Sabha, INC) and Ms Anjali Bhardwaj (Social Activist).

The recommendations from this session are:

Hon'ble Mr Justice Madan B Lokur (Chairperson, UN Internal Justice Council and Former Judge, Supreme Court of India):

Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) be appointed through a two-thirds majority vote of both Houses of Parliament in a joint session. Such a process would help ensure that the appointee commands broad political consensus and is acceptable across party lines.
He strongly criticized the severe delays in the judicial system, noting that election petitions concerning corrupt practices often remain pending for years sometimes until the concerned politician’s five-year term has already ended. To address this issue, he proposed the re-establishment of Election Tribunals, which were abolished in 1966. He suggested that these tribunals could be staffed by retired judges from the Supreme Court and High Courts, enabling election disputes to be adjudicated more efficiently, ideally within a timeframe of a few months to one year.

Mr Sasikanth Senthil (Member of the Lok Sabha, INC):

He recommended that, rather than focusing narrowly on contesting individual statutes through bureaucratic or legal processes, there should be a broader democratic mobilization by citizens to resist what he described as a framework of institutional erosion.
He urged individuals and groups committed to democratic and liberal values to work collectively, across political party lines, to safeguard and strengthen democratic institutions.
When asked specifically about the appropriate process for key institutional appointments (such as that of the Chief Election Commissioner), he suggested involving a neutral individual or a combination of institutions capable of raising “red flags” regarding unsuitable candidates. While a parliamentary mandate is one possible approach, he noted that the earlier Supreme Court–mandated panel system was a reasonable mechanism for identifying and filtering out candidates who may be unfit to hold such critical positions.

Mr Ashok Lavasa (former Election Commissioner of India):

Expand the selection committee to a four-member panel by including an individual of high public credibility from outside the government.
Replace the Chief Justice of India on the panel with a judge nominated by the Chief Justice, thereby maintaining judicial representation while avoiding direct institutional involvement.
Require the selection panel to recommend multiple candidates such as two or three names for consideration for the position.
Establish a transparent process in which a parliamentary committee holds open discussions with the shortlisted candidates, followed by approval by the full Parliament.
Ensure that the names of candidates under consideration are made public well in advance of the panel’s meeting, rather than shortly beforehand, allowing sufficient time for any relevant public information or concerns to emerge and be assessed objectively.
Allow the panel to take decisions by majority vote (for example, three out of four members) rather than requiring unanimity, which could render the process ineffective.
Recognize that no institutional design can fully guarantee the desired outcome; ultimately, the effectiveness of the system depends on the integrity and commitment of individuals entrusted with upholding the dignity of the office.

Ms Anjali Bhardwaj (Social Activist):

Establishing robust systems of accountability and transparency.
To enable effective public scrutiny and facilitate informed civic engagement, key information be placed in the public domain. This should include the names of all applicants and shortlisted candidates, the criteria adopted by the search and selection committees, and the minutes of meetings held by both committees.
There is no “ideal” composition for a selection committee, as a political administration determined to undermine the process may do so regardless of the panel’s structure. Accordingly, there is a need to focus on ensuring that the process itself remains fair, transparent, and free from arbitrariness.
Need for a serious debate on the role of the Chief Justice of India in selection committees. His participation could create a potential conflict of interest if appointments are subsequently challenged in court. Additionally, the Chief Justice’s presence has sometimes been used to deny requests under the Right to Information (RTI) Act on the grounds that the panel involves “high-level functionaries.”
Judiciary to adopt a more proactive role in upholding transparency and accountability in such appointments. The prevailing judicial approach that asks citizens to simply “trust” the system is unacceptable, instead democratic institutions must allow for meaningful public scrutiny.

In his closing remarks, Prof. Trilochan Sastry concluded the stakeholder discussion by summarizing the importance of the themes of all the three sessions which covered a plethora of issues concerning electoral politics in India. He thanked the audience and the panelists for the stimulating discussions. He highlighted the fact that so many eminent personalities joined as speakers for this event and that many participants were present throughout the event (since morning) shows that it is a good sign for democracy that people are interested, concerned and engaged. He mentioned that the big challenge before us is how to get people involved and emphasized that citizens keep working with us (ADR) for a positive and productive path towards improving governance and strengthening our vibrant democracy.

*The photographs of the event are attached herewith.

Thanks & Regards,

Media and Journalist Helpline

+91 80103 94248

Email: a...@adrindia.org

https://adrindia.org/about-adr/state-coordinators

Maj. Gen Anil Verma (Retd.)

Head, NEW & ADR

anil...@adrindia.org

Prof Trilochan Sastry

IIM Bangalore (Retd.)

Founder, NEW & ADR