India held its general elections from 19 April to 1 June, conducted over seven phases. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of Prime Minister Narendra Modi won 240 seats, falling short of an outright majority, and needed to form a coalition government for the first time. The opposition INDIA alliance, led by the Indian National Congress party, secured 232 seats. Voter turnout was 65.8 per cent, down from 67.4 per cent in the 2019 election. Women’s political representation decreased slightly with 74 women elected (13.5 per cent) , down from 78 (14.4 per cent)  in the 2019 election. The election occurred against a backdrop of an intense heatwave that left at least 30 poll workers dead, according to media reports. Democracy experts have noted that the election was well-organized by the Election Commission in a transparent and accountable manner, despite some concerns related to an uneven playing field favouring the ruling party, opposition leaders’ imprisonment, media restrictions and alleged hate speech against Muslims during campaigning.

Sources: Election Commission of India, International IDEA, Indian Express, Westminster Foundation for Democracy, Policy Center for the New South, Reuters

On 10 May, Arvind Kejriwal, leader of the Aam Admi Party (ADP) and Delhi State Chief Minister, was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court (SC) until 1 June, allowing him to campaign for the Lok Sabha elections. Kejriwal had been arrested in March on corruption charges, which critics argued were politically motivated. While his supporters welcomed the decision, viewing it as an affirmation of due process and a fairer playing field, Union Home Minister Amit Shah criticized the judgment, claiming it was not “routine” and suggested preferential treatment. The SC denied these allegations, stating that “we said in our order what we felt was justified.”

Sources: International IDEA, Times of India, The Hindustan Times, The Indian Express, The Economic Times

On 11 March, the Indian government announced it would soon begin implementing the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019, which aims to fast-track citizenship for persecuted religious immigrants, but excludes Muslims. Rights advocates and opposition leaders have criticized the law for religious discrimination, with a spokesperson from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights expressing concern that the law signals a “breach of India’s international human rights obligations.” Union Home Minister Amit Shah stated the opposition is spreading misinformation and politicizing the matter. Shah states that “CAA does not violate Article 14 (right to equality). It’s a law for those who have faced religious persecution in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh.” The law’s implementation comes weeks before a nationwide election and follows another controversial 22 March ruling by a court in one of India’s most populous states (Uttar Pradesh), declaring the Madrasa Act of 2004 unconstitutional and ordering the state government to move students enrolled in the Islamic system to mainstream schools. The Act provides a legal framework for the operation of madrasas [Islam-centred schools] in the state. That ruling will be taken up by the Supreme Court.

Sources: Human Rights Watch, Reuters,  Deutsche Welle, The Indian Express, CNN, Times of India

On 21 March, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) opposition leader and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was arrested and several other protesting party members detained by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a graft case linked to an alleged liquor policy scam. Kejriwal denies wrongdoing and plans to appeal to the Supreme Court. Opposition parties have accused the ruling party of misusing federal investigative agencies to pressure political rivals. Three other AAP leaders have been jailed in the liquor case over the past year. Meanwhile, the Indian National Congress Party (INC) has accused the government of freezing its bank accounts ahead of the election in a tax case dating back to 2018-19, hampering its ability to campaign on a level playing field. Rights groups have criticized the timing of both developments ahead of the elections, calling the “growing crackdown” a breach of human rights. The United States, Germany and the United Nations weighed in with remarks on the recent arrest and the freezing of accounts, encouraging fair and transparent legal processes. The Indian Foreign Ministry strongly objected to both countries' remarks, iterating that "India's legal processes are based on an independent judiciary which is committed to objective and timely outcomes. Casting aspersions on that is unwarranted."

Sources: The Economist, Amnesty International, The Indian Express, Al Jazeera, The Washington Post, Reuters, The Wire

On 9 March, Arun Goel abruptly resigned as Election Commissioner (EC) citing personal reasons, days before the general election schedule announcement, leaving the Election Commission of India (ECI) with only one of its three mandated top officials. The government swiftly appointed two new ECs, Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, selected by a three-member committee comprising Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Minister Amit Shah, and the Leader of the Indian National Congress in the Lokh Sabha, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury. This selection was made under the new Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners Act of 2023 passed in December 2023 –which replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union cabinet minister on the three-member committee to regulate EC appointments. Opposition leaders criticized the Act and appointments, claiming Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu’s political ideologies align closely with the ruling party, potentially compromising the ECI’s independence. The Ministry of Law and Justice argued that senior government officials on the selection committee do not automatically imply bias. On 21 March, the Supreme Court (SC) dismissed challenges to the appointments, citing potential election chaos but criticizing the haste of the selection process. A Supreme Court challenge to the 2023 act is still pending.

Sources: International IDEA, The Hindu (1),  Al Jazeera, Times of India, The Hindu (2), The Economic Times, The Indian Express

On 15 February, India’s Supreme Court (SC) struck down a fund-raising mechanism that allowed for individuals and companies to send unlimited anonymous political donations by receiving so-called “electoral bonds” from the State Bank of India (SBI) in exchange for donations to a political party or candidate. Critics of the system had long maintained that it favoured the ruling party by providing it with a significant financial advantage over its rivals, and by enabling SBI, and consequently the government, to track donations that influence political processes. In response to a petition brought by opposition members and a non-governmental organization, the court declared the electoral bonds scheme as “unconstitutional,” violating citizens’ right to government-held information. The decision mandates the SBI to immediately halt the issuance of electoral bonds. Political analysts and the opposition have praised the SC decision as a step towards transparency and strengthening democracy. Meanwhile, the ruling party has emphasized the importance of respecting every SC decision and accused opposition parties of politicising the matter.

Sources: The Indian Express, The New York Times, Financial Times, Times of India