(a) "The success of electoral democracy can partly be attributed to the status and role of the Election Commission of India."…

(a) The Election Commission and electoral democracy

Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in an independent Election Commission of India (ECI). Its insulation rests on the CEC's security of tenure, equivalent to a Supreme Court judge, removal of other Commissioners only on the CEC's recommendation (Article 324(5)), and a multi-member structure, permanent since 1993 and upheld in T. N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995). This lets it act as a neutral arbiter. Operationally, it enforces the Model Code of Conduct (most vigorously under Seshan, 1990–96, who also introduced voter ID cards), introduced EVMs and VVPATs, and expanded turnout and gender parity through SVEEP. In April 2024 the Supreme Court rejected pleas for 100 per cent VVPAT verification but directed that symbol-loading units be sealed and that losing candidates could seek checks of EVM memory. Challenges include delayed action on MCC violations by ruling parties and opaque appointments. In Anoop Baranwal (2023), the Court directed that, until Parliament legislated, appointments be made on the advice of the PM, the CJI and the Leader of Opposition; the CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023 replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM, which critics say restores executive dominance, and it has been challenged in the Supreme Court. The 2025 Special Intensive Revision of rolls, begun in Bihar, drew allegations of large-scale deletions and was examined by the Court. Striking down electoral bonds (ADR v. Union of India, 2024) shows that electoral integrity depends on the ECI and the judiciary together. The ECI's record explains much of India's electoral success, but that success depends on its demonstrable independence.

(b) Evolution of the Supreme Court's constitutional jurisdiction

The Court's jurisdiction is original (Article 131), writ (Article 32), appellate (Articles 132–136, including special leave), advisory (Article 143) and "complete justice" (Article 142). It began as a positivist adjudicator: A. K. Gopalan (1950) read "procedure established by law" literally. Golaknath (1967) and Kesavananda Bharati (1973) expanded review through the basic structure doctrine; Maneka Gandhi (1978) overturned Gopalan by requiring procedure to be "just, fair and reasonable" and reading Articles 14, 19 and 21 together. Minerva Mills (1980) and L. Chandra Kumar (1997) held judicial review itself to be part of the basic structure. In the 1980s the Court relaxed locus standi through PIL (S. P. Gupta, Bandhua Mukti Morcha), making Articles 32 and 21 instruments for the marginalised. Later it entrenched its primacy through the Collegium system, reaffirmed by striking down the 99th Amendment in the NJAC case (2015), and used Article 142 for complete justice. Rights rulings such as Puttaswamy (2017) and Navtej Johar (2018) sit alongside federal ones: in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor (April 2025) a two-judge bench set timelines for gubernatorial assent, but in its November 2025 opinion on a presidential reference under Article 143 a Constitution Bench held that courts cannot fix such timelines or deem bills assented, showing both the reach and the limits of the Court's role.

(c) Caste as a political category

Democratic politics has turned caste from a ritual, hierarchical category into a horizontal, competitive one. Rajni Kothari (Caste in Indian Politics, 1970) argued that modern politics does not dissolve caste but politicises it, and the Rudolphs (The Modernity of Tradition, 1967) showed caste associations becoming vehicles of democratic participation. This marks a shift from M. N. Srinivas's Sanskritization, a cultural emulation for ritual elevation, to secular bargaining for state power and resources. Three mechanisms operate. First, post-Mandal (1990) mobilisation consolidated OBCs as a voting bloc. Second, Dalit assertion crystallised in parties such as the BSP (founded by Kanshi Ram in 1984), while Srinivas's "dominant caste" (numerically strong and landowning, such as Jats, Yadavs, Marathas and Vokkaligas) explains which groups converted numbers into power. Third, caste-based state parties such as the Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh and the RJD in Bihar entrenched identity-based coalitions. The paradox continues: parties leverage demands for caste enumeration and sub-categorisation (Bihar's 2023 survey put backward and extremely backward classes at about 63 per cent of the population, the Rohini Commission examined OBC sub-categorisation in 2023, and in April 2025 the Union Government decided to enumerate caste in the next Census), while courts enforce the creamy layer and, in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024), permitted sub-classification of Scheduled Castes. Caste thus remains an enduring axis of democratic contest.