Lord Chief Justice Gordon Hewart’s remark about justice is well-known. In 1923, he ruled against the judges of Sussex in a petition filed by a defendant, even though the judges had delivered the right sentence without improper influence. However, the circumstances gave an impression of undue influence. On this basis, Lord Hewart overturned the Sussex judges’ sentence and delivered a historic statement: “It is not merely of some importance but of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
This is a lesson India’s Election Commission (EC) must heed. For years now, it has faced accusations from various quarters that its decisions, methods, and actions have been biased. Recently, a senior leader from the country’s main opposition party expressed his discontent with the Commission’s conduct in Patna. Even former EC members have observed that its credibility has declined in recent years. Yet, the Commission has paid little attention, which only reinforced the accusations.
What the country needs is not ‘One Election’, but a just election. Without fairness, even simultaneous elections may end up causing unintended harm.
This requires, first of all, that the impartiality of the EC be beyond suspicion.
Second, equal conditions must be maintained for candidates from the ruling party and all other parties. It must be ensured that the ruling party does not use state resources and power for its own benefit. Not only in letter but also in spirit.
Third, only deserving individuals should be allowed to enter the Parliament and state legislatures—those competent to be a lawmaker.
These measures are not only necessary but entirely achievable.
Most importantly, the electoral scenario must provide a level playing field to all candidates. Presently, candidates from ruling parties—especially those holding ministerial posts—enjoy special means and privileges. This is an injustice to other candidates, one the EC must end.
Recall the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in 1975, which annulled Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s Lok Sabha elections. The core point was that using state resources for the benefit of a candidate was illegal.
Therefore, the use of government resources for the ruling party’s benefit—now routinely done in countless ways throughout the year—must stop. This has become so obvious that everyone says a particular ruling party is always in ‘election mode’. It must be noted that this happens only through the misuse of state resources—it would otherwise be impossible for any party.
The spirit of the 1975 Allahabad High Court verdict must apply not only to election campaigns, but all party-related activities openly carried out by ministers, which benefit the ruling party and harm others. For anyone holding a government position, it is a clear misuse of the office.
Opposition at disadvantage
Separating the state and the ruling party at every level is fundamental for fair elections. Ministers routinely use state facilities and resources for party activities. This puts Opposition parties at a severe disadvantage—not only during elections but throughout the tenure. It is patently unfair, like a football match in which one team is forced to play barefoot while the other wears premium shoes. This injustice in the Indian electoral scenario must be corrected, or the malaise will only fester.
Political parties, by their very nature, tend to acquire authoritarian tendencies as they grow—a phenomenon described by sociologist Robert Michels as the “Iron Law of Oligarchy”. He observed that as parties expand, unethical and autocratic tendencies rise within their leadership, which even their lower ranks cannot stop. Therefore, parties should be subject to checks, not privileges.
This was also the spirit of the Constitution. It granted rights and responsibilities to individuals appointed to government posts—not to parties. Political parties were treated as any other social institution, like an NGO or a business. The Constitution gave political parties no special status. But over time, ruling leaders gradually secured privileges for parties, creating an unconstitutional and unjust system.
Today, even small parties receive official bungalows, cheap land, and other benefits. But the ruling party, of course, enjoys the lion’s share with countless facilities, directly or indirectly, out of state resources. This is not only unconstitutional—it also attracts the wrong kind of people to politics.
It is for everyone to see that when ministers work for their party, they do so backed by government staff, logistics, resources, and prestige. But these privileges were intended only for official duties, not party activities. So, for a minister to openly work for the party and declare ‘to finish’ an opposing party is quite unconstitutional.
Similarly, ministers campaigning outside their own electoral constituency is unethical. It results in the use of state power against a rival party’s candidates, giving the ruling party unfair advantages. Independent and small-party candidates suffer unduly.
We must remember that the government belongs to all citizens, not to one specific party. But leaders from the ruling party constantly deliver speeches against Opposition parties and leaders, as though the entire state apparatus exists solely for their exclusive dominance. As though a minister’s very job is to malign or insult opponents with the help of state power. The speeches and actions of many ministers reflect narrow party interests. This blurs the line between government and party—a distortion that must be corrected. Such blurring does not exist in democratic countries like Europe, the US, Australia, or Japan.
The mixup of state and ruling party has been a hallmark of Communist dictatorships. But in India, this has been so institutionalised in practice, that few notice its unjust and unconstitutional character. In the Third Schedule of the Constitution, ministers swear an oath:
“…I will do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution and the law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.”
No sooner than a minister makes allegations or hostile remarks against any party or leader, they violate that constitutional oath. Unless a court has found a leader or political party guilty of wrongdoing, it is unjust and contrary to their oath, for a minister to malign an Opposition leader or party. Such statements, during or outside elections, violate the duty of ministerial office. One need not be a rocket scientist to perceive it.
Also read: The Preamble won’t be changed back to the original. Here’s why
Establishing a level playing field
It is imperative to stop government office-holders from engaging in party work openly. All the facilities a minister receives—staff, office, residence, media coverage, and public prominence—are due to public office. Using any of these for party gain or to harm opponents is a clear misuse—a scene so routine in India that it looks normal. It is not.
If a particular leader is needed for party work, they must resign from the ministerial post. Otherwise, it implies that the party is using their government position as a front to access state resources and influence for its own use. This is blatant misuse, exactly as the Allahabad High Court held in the 1975 verdict. Yet today, ministers are seen doing party work and making party statements year-round, and with gusto.
The constitutional stipulation, however, is quite contrary to this. Just as the owner or director of a private company, upon becoming a government minister, cannot use state power to openly benefit their company or harm others, the same principle applies to political parties. A minister, as long as they occupy the post, must not speak in favour of their party or against others.
These matters must also be examined from the perspective of natural justice. It is wrong to exempt political parties from income tax and the Right to Information Act. The Constitution didn’t even acknowledge political parties, much less grant them special privileges. Yet today, parties enjoy many benefits denied to other social organisations. It is leading the country into moral decay, as happened in all communist regimes.
The mix-up of party and state is the source of great corruption in India. The country, including the EC, must recognise the growing malaise before it is too late.
It can be stopped easily, too. Every party already has its own office-bearers, so party meetings, statements, and campaigns should be conducted only through them. Ministers should perform only government functions and speak on government matters alone. Only then can the party-government mix-up end. And only then can the distinction between the legislature and the executive in Parliament and Assemblies can be maintained. It would also bring more dignity and ease to legislative debates.
It is not difficult to separate state functions from party activities, as the same restrictions would apply to all parties. It would not favour or harm anyone more than the other, and would finally establish a level playing field in elections.
Therefore, for every good reason, what India needs is not One Election but a just election.
Shankar Sharan is a columnist and professor of political science. He tweets @hesivh. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)