(a) How has the electoral democracy augmented the participation of people in the democratic process? (20 marks) (b) Discuss the…

(a) Electoral Democracy and Participation

Universal adult franchise under Article 326 made every adult citizen an equal voter, converting politics from elite contest to mass participation. Competitive party system, with national and regional parties, gives choices, forces accountability, and channels interests. Periodic elections, secret ballot and ECI oversight make participation recurring, not episodic, and convert votes into accountability. Reservation for SCs and STs in legislatures, and for SCs, STs, women and (where states provide it) OBCs in local bodies, has augmented representation of marginalized groups, while women's reservation in Parliament was enacted in 2023 (106th Amendment), to take effect after delimitation. Local self-government through Panchayati Raj and municipalities extends participation to grassroots. The Election Commission of India has strengthened participation through voter education, SVEEP, voter ID, continuous voter list revision, and digital innovations such as EVMs and VVPAT, which improve secrecy, speed and public confidence. NOTA, introduced after the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in PUCL v. Union of India, has allowed voters to reject all candidates, making abstention a visible democratic act. Turnout has broadened too: about two-thirds of voters now vote in Lok Sabha elections, and women's turnout matched and in 2019 slightly exceeded men's. Yet limitations remain: money power, criminalization of candidates, caste/communal mobilization, and declining turnout in urban and educated segments show that formal franchise does not guarantee substantive participation. The “second democratic upsurge” thesis of Yogendra Yadav (developed with Suhas Palshikar) argues that after a first upsurge from the late 1960s, when intermediate peasant castes entered politics, the late 1980s and 1990s brought mass mobilization of Dalits, backward castes, tribals and women, social movements and regional parties, deepening democracy beyond elite politics.

(b) Social Movements and Democratic Deepening

In developing societies, social movements fill gaps left by formal institutions. Anti-colonial movements created the state, while post-independence movements have pressed for rights, resources and dignity. Dalit assertion, rooted in Ambedkarite politics and later crystallized in the BSP, converted caste grievance into electoral and constitutional politics. Environmental movements such as Chipko and Narmada Bachao Andolan challenged development orthodoxy, forced environmental impact assessment and public hearing, and expanded development to include ecology and displacement. The 2020-21 farmers’ protests showed how organized protest can test parliamentary legislation, force dialogue and lead to policy correction. Movements thus act as corrective mechanisms, monitoring the state and giving voice to excluded groups. But they can also strain institutional stability when demands become maximalist, when violence or disruption is used, or when movement leadership bypasses courts and legislatures. India’s “movement-party” dialectic is instructive: movements may remain outside parties, as in environmental or farmers’ politics, or transform into parties, as in BSP, institutionalizing dissent but sometimes diluting radical critique.

(c) ICJ Composition and Voluntary Jurisdiction

The ICJ has 15 judges elected by the General Assembly and Security Council for nine-year terms, each needing an absolute majority in both organs, with one-third of the bench renewed every three years (Articles 3, 4, 10 and 13 of the Statute). Article 9 requires the bench as a whole to represent the main forms of civilization and the principal legal systems, and in practice seats follow a regional distribution. No two judges may be nationals of the same state, unless one is an ad hoc judge, ad hoc judges may be appointed if a party is unrepresented. Its contentious jurisdiction is voluntary: states consent through treaties containing compromissory clauses, special agreements, optional clause declarations under Article 36(2), or forum prorogatum. Optional clause declarations are qualified by reservations, limiting their scope. India made a 1959 declaration with reservations and replaced it in 1974 with a new declaration carrying wider reservations, a further revised declaration of September 2019, with additional reservations, is now in force. States avoid compulsory jurisdiction because of sovereignty concerns, fear of politically sensitive disputes, and weak enforcement. Advisory jurisdiction allows UN organs and authorized agencies to seek non-binding but influential opinions. Recent cases: in Kulbhushan Jadhav, India invoked a treaty-based clause and obtained provisional measures, in Ukraine v. Russia, Ukraine invoked the Genocide Convention for provisional measures. Voluntary jurisdiction keeps the Court legitimate in the eyes of states but leaves compliance dependent on consent and political will.