(a) Electoral behaviour of voters is governed more by the social and economic factors than the political factors. Explain. (20…

(a) Socio-economic and political determinants of electoral behaviour

Electoral behaviour reflects the complex interplay of social, economic, and political forces, with sociological and economic axes historically forming the foundational bedrock in India. The Columbia School (Paul Lazarsfeld, The People's Choice, 1944) posits that social characteristics determine political preference, the Michigan School (The American Voter, 1960) focuses on psychological party identification, and Anthony Downs's rational-choice model (1957) treats voters as weighing policies and performance - the strongest case for political factors. In India, Rajni Kothari explained this as the "politicisation of caste," where caste becomes an instrument of democratic mobilisation rather than a static hierarchy. Yogendra Yadav highlighted the "second democratic upsurge," demonstrating how lower-caste groups leveraged adult franchise for political empowerment.

Social cleavages—caste identity, religious mobilisation, ethnicity, and regional sub-nationalism—serve as enduring voting determinants. Simultaneously, economic factors such as agrarian distress, price rise, unemployment, and class stratification continuously condition voter choices. In the post-2014 and 2019 general elections, this manifested in a distinct caste-class convergence: traditional caste loyalties were restructured through targeted welfarism (labharthi politics), where the direct delivery of public goods (housing, sanitation, Direct Benefit Transfers) created cross-caste economic constituencies.

The 2024 general election, in which the ruling party fell short of a majority as caste-based alliances and concerns over jobs and prices reasserted themselves in states such as Uttar Pradesh, showed that these socio-economic factors remain decisive. Political factors, including charismatic leadership, party organisation, ideological narratives (such as Hindutva or secularism), and digital campaign strategies, act as mediating and mobilizing variables. Rather than operating independently, political factors succeed primarily by aggregating, reframing, and activating these pre-existing socio-economic realities.

(b) Basic structure doctrine and judicial review

Propounded in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Basic Structure Doctrine fundamentally expanded the scope of judicial review by imposing substantive constitutional limitations on Parliament’s amending power under Article 368.

The doctrine evolved through pivotal rulings. In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) the Court used it to strike down the 39th Amendment's attempt to put the Prime Minister's election beyond challenge, holding free and fair elections to be a basic feature. In Minerva Mills (1980), the Supreme Court struck down clauses of the 42nd Amendment, establishing that judicial review is itself an integral part of the basic structure. In S.R. Bommai (1994), federalism and secularism were recognised as basic features, subjecting Presidential proclamations under Article 356 to strict judicial scrutiny. I.R. Coelho (2007) extended judicial review to laws placed in the Ninth Schedule post-1973 if they violate Fundamental Rights forming part of the basic structure. Finally, the NJAC Case (2015) invalidated the 99th Constitutional Amendment, asserting judicial independence in appointments as non-negotiable.

While the doctrine has shielded the Constitution from authoritarian majoritarianism and secured constitutionalism, it has generated intense debate over parliamentary sovereignty versus judicial supremacy. Critics argue that absent textual anchorage, the doctrine risks transforming legitimate judicial review into judicial overreach, enabling unelected judges to invalidate constitutional amendments passed by the elected legislature.

(c) Inter-State Council: composition, functions and record

Established under Article 263 on the recommendation of the Sarkaria Commission via a Presidential Order of 28 May 1990, the Inter-State Council (ISC) is an institutional apparatus for cooperative federalism. It comprises the Prime Minister as Chairman, Chief Ministers of all States, Chief Ministers and Administrators of Union Territories, and six Union Cabinet Ministers nominated by the Prime Minister.

Article 263 envisages three functions: inquiring into and advising upon inter-state disputes; investigating and discussing subjects in which States or the Union have a common interest; and making recommendations for the better coordination of policy and action on such subjects. Significantly, the 1990 Order assigned the Council only the second and third, leaving out the dispute-inquiry function.

The ISC's success in achieving its objectives has been severely constrained. It remains a purely advisory body whose recommendations are non-binding. It suffers from acute institutional neglect, having met only 11 times since inception - the last in July 2016 - far below the thrice-yearly schedule in its procedural rules. Decision-making remains heavily skewed toward the Union executive, and its deliberative role has been increasingly eclipsed by specialized platforms such as the GST Council and NITI Aayog.

The Punchhi Commission (2010) recommended rejuvenating the ISC as a permanent forum for continuous policy negotiation. Although the Council and its Standing Committee have been reconstituted from time to time, realizing true cooperative federalism necessitates granting it statutory teeth, an independent secretariat, and regularized deliberative sessions.