Research Articles

Authors: Pravar Petkar, Head of Strengthening Democracy Desk; Annabel Kauffmann, Research Intern; Samuel Lewis, Research Intern 2025 has seen the focus of Indian democracy shift away from national-level campaigning towards State Assembly elections in Delhi and Bihar, and other local and national issues outside the realm of day-to-day politics. This explainer explores these issues, analysing what impression they give of India’s democratic health at the present time. From the six examples discussed here, it is clear that Indian democracy faces structural challenges relating to its federal system, electoral system, voter registration process and more which demand attention across the political spectrum. The Lok Sabha’s Delimitation Dilemma Large federal democracies face a common and often intractable challenge: as the population and economy grows at different rates in different parts of the country, how is equal representation in legislatures ensured? Most such democracies undertake periodic re-apportionment exercises (termed ‘delimitation’ in India), adjusting the number of legislative seats available to each state following a national census. India is no stranger to this challenge, but for structural reasons is suffering more than most as the Lok Sabha – its lower house – becomes increasingly unrepresentative. Under the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution of India, Lok Sabha seat shares for each state were frozen to their share of the population in 1971. This was extended by the 84th Amendment to the Constitution in 2001, making current allocations over 50 years out of date. The design history of the Lok Sabha suggests that it was supposed to be constituted based on population share, and not equal representation for each. The current imbalances also create a welfare problem, with the less economically prosperous but more populous northern states under-represented in comparison to the more prosperous but less populous southern states. Fixing decades of inaction requires a step-change in the system. As research by the ICfS has suggested, the existing structural problems are exacerbated by the Lok Sabha’s First-Past-the-Post electoral system: several state-level critics of the forthcoming delimitation exercise would lose out on Lok Sabha representation following any changes, creating an unintended incentive to resist what ought to be a routine exercise. Whilst electoral reform is unlikely in the near future, a preferential voting system would remove this barrier and give more space to smaller parties. India has not had a census since 2011, as the scheduled 2021 census was delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Government of India has announced that the next census will take place on 1 March 2027, with an earlier date of 1 October 2026 for the areas of Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand. Re-apportionment of seats can only take place once official census results have been published. Given that previous delimitation exercises have taken around two years to complete, there are risks that the process will be rushed so that it can be completed before the 2029 General Election. Devadasan has also highlighted concerns around the independence of the Delimitation Commission, one member of which is India’s Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). The Union Cabinet has had a 2:1 majority on the panel to appoint the CEC since 2023, with the result that the CEC is structurally more likely to tow the Government line. Several solutions to India’s delimitation dilemma have been put forward over the course of this year. Expanding the Lok Sabha is one option: India’s new Parliament Building can seat up to 880 Lok Sabha members, and Devadasan has pointed out that smaller constituencies reduce barriers to less well-resourced candidates, given the cost of campaigning. Rajya Sabha reform may strengthen India’s federal system. The Delimitation Commission must also operate within a transparent framework, with clear restrictions on the geographical size and number of eligible voters in each new constituency to minimise gerrymandering based on religion, caste or economic status. Who rules in India’s states? On 8 April 2025, India’s Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment, ruling that State Governors cannot absolutely veto or fail to approve Bills passed by State Legislatures. The Court outlined that the Governor of Tamil Nadu, RN Ravi, acted unconstitutionally and illegally by withholding or granting assent to 10 state Bills. The judgment ended a lengthy 5-year battle between the State of Tamil Nadu through the DMK-led legislature and its Governor.  Under Article 200 of the Constitution of India, upon receiving a bill, the Governor may choose to either grant assent, withhold assent or pass the bill for the President’s consideration (under Article 201). The Court, guided by the precedent of Union of India v Valluri Basavaiah Chowdhary (1979), observed that withholding assent from a Bill is only valid if the Governor returns the legislation to the legislature, and a re-passed Bill must be granted assent after being returned. April’s ruling mandates a specific timeframe within which Governors must respond to Bills, depending on whether the Governor sought advice and if the Bill was reconsidered by the legislature. The Bench further clarified that under Article 201, if the Governor chooses to pass a Bill to the President of India, they also cannot withhold assent without specified time limits. The case in Tamil Nadu proved especially contentious as it sought to amend the limits of gubernatorial powers, transferring authority over institutional oversight and executive appointments processes of state universities to the state legislative assembly. Similar cases have also arisen in Kerala and Punjab in 2023. Within India’s federal system, Governors essentially act as the constitutional head of state at state level holding a range of legislative powers, including the ability to summon and prorogue the legislature. In practice, the exercise of legislative authority by States is highly significant in policymaking processes because States are responsible for issues such as public order, public health, land use, trade and for collecting taxes. The Supreme Court’s ruling is highly significant to India’s democratic health as it reaffirmed the parliamentary nature of India’s federal system, in this instance, Governor Ravi overreached his authority by acting against the spirit of the Constitution and the advice of his Cabinet ministers, undermining the principles of representative democracy. Furthermore, the judgment upholds the integrity of the federal system by limiting the

Author: Sam Lewis, Research Intern The UK is a representative democracy. At the UK-wide level, decisions are made by a parliament which is elected around once every five years. However, in the 2010s the UK experimented with referenda (when the public are asked directly on a specific issue) to inform decision-making. There were three major referenda in this period:  Date  Question  Turnout  Result  2011  “At present the UK uses the “first past the post” system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the “alternative vote” system be used instead?”    42.2%  Yes: 32.1%  No: 67.9%  2012  “Should Scotland be an independent country”    84.6%   Yes: 44.7%  No: 55.3%  2016  “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?  72.2%  Remain: 48.1%  Leave: 51.9%  However, in the 2020s referenda are no longer popular. This is a problem as, by association, discussions about more direct democratic participation have been abandoned. Due to this spillover effect, it is important to once again discuss referenda in the context of strengthening British democracy.   Issues that emerged  To have this discussion within the policy and research space, it is important to understand three principal issues that emerged from the experiments.  What does a ‘once in a generation vote’ mean?   The Alternative Vote (AV), Scottish independence and EU referendum campaigns all claimed that they were an attempt to settle their issue ‘for a generation’. But how does one define a generation? The number usually brought up was once every 20 years (the gap between each of the 1979, 1998 and 2014 Scottish referenda). However, there is no legal requirement for the gap to be so long. The Northern Ireland Act allows a seven-year gap between secession referenda. This is an issue that remains unresolved, with the UK having no general procedure for enacting a referendum. Therefore, there was no agreement about the frequency with which they should be a part of the democratic process.  What subject-matter warrants a referendum?  Linked to this, there was also confusion about what issues warrant holding a referendum. There was some consensus since the 1990s that referendums should be held on questions of devolution, but even that was fairly weak. For example, in 2011 there was a referendum to grant Wales more devolved powers but later it was decided that the Welsh Assembly could be given income tax powers without a referendum. This was also seen with the Brexit process as neither the Maastricht Treaty nor the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement were directly taken to the public. However, instead of having discussion about what requires the direct consultation of voters, the UK has simply returned to the default of representative decision-making.  Referenda refused to silence the debates on the issues they sought to address  Given that all these referenda were on divisive issues, it is not surprising that the ‘loosing camps’ continued to remain vocal following the results. Despite losing the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum the Scottish National Party continues to be a political force, having won two more elections in Holyrood whilst repeatedly calling for a second referendum. This was also seen through the People’s Vote campaign following the 2016 EU referendum. Six million people signed a petition to rejoin the EU and hundreds of thousands attended a march calling for a second vote. That they were incapable of silencing these issues reveals problems with the binary nature of these referenda. All three of the referenda were anti-pluralist, turning complicated issues into binary questions with the ‘winner’ simply needing over 50%. Given the controversy of the issues this was not a fair way of representing the plurality of opinions that the public had. However, at no point were different forms of referenda (such as including more than two options) seriously considered as a solution for the future.  It is important to acknowledge these issues as the questions they raise are still as relevant as they were in the 2010s. These include questions such as when decisions require direct consultation of voters and how best to reflect the plurality of their opinions. Having these discussions is essential for strengthening democracy in the UK.  Why do we need to discuss referenda?  It is important to discuss these in relation to referenda because they are not dead. The 2010s were not an isolated experiment but instead a ‘third wave’; the first started with the Northern Ireland border poll in 1973 and ended with the Scottish devolution referendum in 1979, and the second occurred between 1998 and 2004 around the creation of devolved assemblies in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Greater London and North East England (the last of which was overwhelmingly rejected). Therefore, referenda are simply dormant and there is no reason they could not become popular again. Policy discussion therefore must take referenda seriously lest the same mistakes are made again.  It is also important to have this discussion because it involves looking outside of Westminster. Devolved and local authorities provide opportunities for experimenting with different forms of democratic participation. This is seen at the moment with the use of citizens assemblies or digital democracy. At the local level there have been important referenda following Brexit such as Bristol voting in 2022 to abolish elected mayors. These examples can provide us with a great opportunity for providing greater insight into the potential role of different forms of democratic participation.   However, Parliament has not published a report of referenda in local authorities since 2016. This is an apt metaphor for the reluctance of policymakers to continue engaging with the advantages and disadvantages of referenda, even though there are still many discussions to have. The responsibility of this should be taken up by think-tanks and researchers. If research communities take referenda seriously, both other researchers and policymakers can have a better understanding of their merits and drawbacks. This will lead to far more constructive discussions about the nature of democratic representation in the UK and the role that more direct forms of decision making can have in the country’s

Author: Pravar petkar and Amy wonnacott The House of Lords is one of the largest and longest-standing parliamentary chambers in the world. For some, an unelected chamber at the heart of the British governing apparatus is a relic of a bygone era, incompatible with the demands of a modern democracy. For others, it represents a vital check on the party-political House of Commons, drawing on its members’ deep experience in public and professional life in revising legislation. Many nevertheless agree that the House of Lords is in need of some reform. But where should that reform begin?   This research paper argues that any effort to reform the House of Lords must start by articulating the chamber’s purpose – without this, reform efforts risk undermining what makes the House of Lords successful today. Read the full report here: A Functional Analysis of UK House of Lords Reform