This viewpoint is reinforced by a vast amount of evidence (File)
Elections were held in five states - Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Telangana and Mizoram - in November and December. This initiated a significant conversation around lowering the age limit for contesting polls. It is unlikely to happen soon, but it would be significant.
On 18 May 1949, the Constituent Assembly of India, tasked with creating India's Constitution, debated the insertion of an Article that set guidelines such as the minimum age for a parliamentarian in India. The motion was to set 25 years as the minimum age to enter Lok Sabha and 35 years for Rajya Sabha.
Durgabai Deshmukh, a legendary freedom fighter who fought bravely for women's emancipation, moved an amendment to this motion and sought to reduce the minimum age to enter Rajya Sabha from 35 to 30. She felt that with the dynamicity of a new nation, the youth were considerably aware of their democratic responsibilities. She argued that wisdom does not depend on age and that young people must be trained in the affairs of the state. Socialist leader HV Kamath, speaking in favour of this amendment, cited William Pitt, who entered the UK parliament at 21 and became the Prime Minister of the country at 24. Kamath held that the minimum age should be uniformly reduced to 21 for either house of parliament.
Durgabai was seconded by eminent figures such as Shibban Lal Saxena (arrested for organising a protest in Kanpur against the Jallianwala Bagh massacre) and Tajamul Hussain (barrister and two-time Rajya Sabha MP). Subsequently, the amendment was adopted and today it remains in our constitution as Article 84 and Article 173. These Articles prescribe 25 and 30 years as the lower limit for the lower and upper houses at both the Centre and in state assemblies.
This brings us to the second debate. It began more than 13 years ago when a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by one Kumar Gaurav surprised a Supreme Court bench comprising then Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan and Justices R V Raveendran and Deepak Verma. The PIL called for a change in the age limit for contesting the Lok Sabha and assembly elections to 21 years from the stipulated 25 years, especially since the age of voting had been reduced from 21 to 18 years. The judges responded with the insight that experience in politics is a must before contesting elections. The counsel for Kumar Gaurav said it was the people's fundamental right to choose a profession and politics had become one. The counsel also said in many countries the age limit for people's representatives had been reduced to 18 years and that India should follow suit.
The PIL was dismissed, but a parliamentary panel was asked to discuss lowering the minimum age for contesting an assembly election from 25 to 18 years. The panel said it would widen the viewpoints in policy debates, thus improving the credibility of the political process. It presented a report on the aspects of the election process and reforms to Rajya Sabha. The panel, chaired by BJP MP Sushil Kumar, also cautioned the government and the Election Commission on their proposal for a common electoral roll for parliamentary, assembly and local body elections. In summary, it suggested sticking to principles of federalism. The committee also recommended raising the punishment for a candidate filing a false affidavit from six months to up to two years and a fine, depending on the severity of the offence.
This highlights the observation that reducing the minimum age requirement for elections will give young individuals equal opportunities to engage in democracy. This viewpoint is reinforced by a vast amount of evidence, such as global practices, the increasing political consciousness among young people and the advantages of youth representation. The report added that political parties had in the past favoured experienced candidates for public office while dismissing younger candidates as lacking in experience. This suggests that political competence comes with age, a notion that Plato argued for over 2,000 years ago. However, in the 21st century, this belief is increasingly being considered outdated. Due to the expansion in education, globalisation and digitalisation, younger individuals are now more than capable of running for office in all countries. The committee raised its points on some solid logic. The committee said it was disconcerting that 47 per cent of MPs in 2019 were over 55, per PRS Legislative Research, while India's median age was 27.9 years.
It is important to note in this context that the Election Commission did not agree with the need to change the minimum age. The poll panel made it clear in its input to the committee that it had considered the issue and found it unrealistic to expect 18-year-olds to "possess the necessary experience and maturity for these responsibilities". The Election Commission's viewpoint was based on its belief that 18-year-olds might not possess the necessary experience and maturity to shoulder the responsibilities of parliamentary and state legislative roles. The committee still argued it had been observed through surveys, which indicated that youth globally had significant political awareness and knowledge. It was evident through youth-led movements such as Fridays for Future and March for Our Lives, highlighting their capacity to rally and champion critical social and political concerns. Then the aim of providing young individuals equal opportunities to actively engage in democracy needs to be pursued. More importantly, young individuals can be reliable and responsible political participants.
Under the present legal framework, a person must be at least 25 years old to contest Lok Sabha and assembly polls, and the minimum age for Rajya Sabha and state legislative council membership is 30 years. As things stand, the committee has called upon the Election Commission and the government to prioritise providing comprehensive civic education programs to equip young people with the knowledge and skills necessary for political engagement. The potential adoption of successful models, such as Finland's citizenship education, tailored to suit the Indian context, is the future.
The bottom line is clear. In today's globalised world, young men and women are aware of their rights and responsibilities and are vocal about all political issues. International movements like Fridays for Future that advance climate change dialogue globally were started by young activists. So we must ask ourselves: Have we given our youth those very seats at the high table?
(V. VijayaSai Reddy is a Member of Rajya Sabha and Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism and Culture)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author