While a proactive and firmer implementation of electoral rules and the MCC happened in the 1990s, the decade of the 2000s was a period of activism on voters’ rights which mainly grew out of the activism of urban professionals and media in metropolises like Delhi, Bangalore, Mumbai and Ahmedabad. This civil society activism in the form of campaigns by ordinary citizens, NGOs like the ADR, Lok Prahari and the PUCL made efforts towards greater accountability and transparency in the electoral system, especially regarding the rights of voters to know their representatives better. These organisations campaigned for greater information in the public domain to enable voters to make informed choices at the polling booth. This call for reforms is rooted in the middle class's impatience with political parties and its call to contain corruption and make politics ‘cleaner’ and ‘ethical’. The discourse of voters’ rights and accountability of the political class to the people was an endorsement by the middle class of what Surinder Jodhka and Aseem Prakash call a ‘new kind of politics which celebrates civil society organizations over political parties and trade unions’ (Jodhka and Prakash, 2016: 166).

Right to Know about Prospective Representatives

The middle class in cities frequently voiced concerns over ‘corruption’ and the use of force and excessive illegal money in elections. It came forward to see that electoral malpractice and complications, which include rigging, difficulties in registering as voters, use of illegal money and coercion, hate speeches based on caste and religion, criminal records of those contesting, and so on, reduce (Sastry, 2004). The role of these ordinary citizens came under much focus as agents of a ‘cleaner’ politics. Their role was emphasised in reforming the electoral system and ensuring ‘cleaner and better candidates and elections’ (Sastry, 2004: 1391; Dash, 2004) and their efforts seen as providing the much-needed support to state institutions like the Supreme Court and the EC in improving the system. The logic was that people's power would energise the actions of these institutions in the event of the resistance of political leadership in bringing about the needed political changes – in other words, popular pressure would make institutions decisive and move on the appropriate path.