Exploring Decentralized Governance and Blockchain’s Role in India’s Bureaucratic Trust Crisis
- Post by: Arjun Kumar
- July 26, 2025
- No Comment
Saniya Verma[1], Kashif Manzer[2]
[1] 1University of Delhi, Department of Sociology saniyav236@gmail.com
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/saniya-verma-31b03a249
[2] California State University, Long Beach, Department of Computer Science, kmanzer3@gmail.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kashif-manzer/
| Title: | Exploring Decentralized Governance and Blockchain’s Role inIndia’s Bureaucratic Trust Crisis |
| Author(s): | Saniya Verma, Kashif Manzer |
| Keywords: | Blockchain voting, Electoral trust, Decentralized governance, Smart contracts, Digital, India, Biometric authentication |
| Issue Date: | 25 July 2025 |
| Publisher: | IMPRI Impact and Policy Research Institute |
| Abstract: | In India, growing concerns about the integrity of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and diminishing electoral trust have prompted debates. Blockchain technology offers a potential solution by restoring trust and enhancing democratic participation. This paper explores a blockchain-enabled voting system designed to ensure transparency, prevent EVM tampering, and promote decentralized governance. Aligned with the Digital India vision, the proposed system utilizes smart contracts and blockchains for a secure and publicly auditable voting process. It integrates Decentralized Identity (DID) systems and biometric authentication to onboard eligible voters, especially in rural areas. Voters can cast their ballots through home connectivity or at booths, with votes recorded in a permissioned blockchain ledger managed by the Election Commission of India (ECI), which will make results traceable on its website, eci.gov.in. This research draws on examples like Telangana’s blockchain land records and the RBI’s pilot of Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), highlighting the feasibility and relevance of blockchain voting systems. By ensuring fair elections, this approach positions India as a global model of a technology-driven, trustworthy democracy. The study employs qualitative methods, including surveys, to capture the perspectives of the urban population on blockchain voting, addressing the rising mistrust in current electoral systems. |
| Page(s): | 26-44 |
| URL: | https://iprr.impriindia.com/exploring-decentralized-governance-and-blockchains-role-in-indias-bureaucratic-trust-crisis/ |
| ISSN: | 2583-3464 (Online) |
| PDF Link: | https://iprr.impriindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/SA-1-Exploring-Decentralized-Governance-and-Blockchains-Role-in-Saniya-Verma-and-Kashif-IPRR-V4I1.pdf |
(January-June 2025) Volume 4, Issue 1 | 25th July 2024
ISSN: 2583-3464 (Online)
Introduction
The transparency of election processes is a pillar of democratic rule, yet in modern India, the credibility of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) has increasingly come under scrutiny, fueling debates about trust and equity in elections. Since their widespread adoption in the early 2000s, EVMs have been instrumental in streamlining India’s democratic electoral system, managing the world’s largest polling exercise with over 912 million eligible voters in 2019. However, allegations of manipulation, most notably during the 2019 national elections, have eroded public confidence, with opposition leaders demanding 100% VVPAT checks due to reported mismatches. Recent polls underscore this crisis, revealing that over 70% of India’s youth distrust the current voting system (Pew Research Centre, 2024). This trust deficit, coupled with systemic inequalities in access to voting opportunities—particularly for marginalized groups like Adivasi communities and rural women—poses a profound challenge to India’s democratic framework, risking the exclusion of the most vulnerable and undermining the legitimacy of electoral outcomes.
Against this backdrop, blockchain technology emerges as a revolutionary solution, promising to enhance transparency, eliminate tampering, and foster decentralized governance. This vision resonates with recent advocacy from Sabeer Bhatia, the co-founder of Hotmail, who, on May 6, 2025, proposed a secure voting app for India, stating, “Everything has become an app—food, transport, banking, shopping, even relationships. Why not elections? It is time for the world’s largest democracy to lead with a secure voting app. If Modiji is ready, I am ready to build it.” Bhatia’s argument that trust in banking apps can extend to voting apps mirrors the sociological imperative of rebuilding confidence through technology, while his vision of India leading in digital democracy aligns with the potential of blockchain to address both trust and equity.
This paper examines the potential of a blockchain-based voting system integrated with Decentralized Identity (DID) and AI/ML to tackle these challenges, combining a sociological analysis of trust and equity with a technical architecture designed for security and scalability. By leveraging blockchain’s tamper-proof ledger, DID’s secure voter authentication, and AI/ML’s capacity to detect fraud, this system aims to ensure transparent, verifiable elections accessible to all, particularly the marginalized. In doing so, it seeks to restore public faith in India’s electoral process, promote inclusive participation, and set a global standard for technology-enabled democracy.
Historical Context of EVMs in India
Electronic Voting Machines arrived in India during the 1980s and full-scale implementation started in 2004, a major departure from paper ballots to electronic mechanisms (Election Commission of India, 2004). Intended to manage India’s large electorate—more than 970 million voters as of 2024, EVMs have been highly commended for cutting down electoral cheating, including booth capturing, and speeding up the declaration of results. Yet, their use has not been controversy-free. There have been charges of tampering, especially during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, when opposition parties and civil society groups raised questions about the machines’ integrity (Rao, 2020). The issue is especially critical in rural regions, where a lack of trust is reinforced by poor information and education regarding the technology. A 2021 survey conducted by Lokniti-CSDS found that 62% of rural voters articulated concern regarding EVM reliability, an indication of an entrenched trust deficit (Lokniti-CSDS, 2021). Such scepticism displaces the democratic process since belief in electoral systems lies at the basis of legitimacy, a notion that Bourdieu describes as “symbolic capital”—the projected power that institutions gain from public belief (Bourdieu, 1991). The ongoing scepticism about EVMs underscores the imperative for a more transparent and verifiable voting system, especially in a country as diverse and stratified as India.
Rise of Blockchain Voting
Blockchain technology, first popularized by cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, has since developed into a multi-purpose tool for decentralized governance, providing immutable, transparent, and secure data management systems (Nakamoto, 2008). Its use in elections has elicited international interest, with nations such as Estonia having used blockchain-based e-voting since 2005 and registering a voter turnout of more than 40% in virtual elections by 2019 (Vassil et al., 2016). Blockchain’s key strengths are its distributed ledger, cryptographic security, and auditability which makes it the perfect contender to counteract the susceptibilities of EVMs. In India, the technology has already been proven to work in non-election spheres, including Telangana’s blockchain-supported land registration system that has minimized property transaction fraud and the Reserve Bank of India’s pilot deployment of Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), showing scalability in financial infrastructures (Government of Telangana, 2022; Reserve Bank of India, 2023). These examples imply that blockchain is applicable to the Indian electoral situation, using smart contracts and permissioned ledgers such as Hyperledger Fabric to produce a voting process that is secure, publicly transparent, and available through platforms such as eci.gov.in.
Research Gap and Objectives
Though the interest in blockchain voting is expanding, there exists a large disparity in combining technical and sociological viewpoints in the Indian context. Most studies consider either the technical viability of blockchain systems (Khan et al., 2020) or the sociological aspects of trust in elections (Rao, 2020), but infrequently do these studies connect both fields to take into account the specific challenges facing India—viz, its immense electorate, socio-economic inequalities, and deep-seated bureaucratic suspicion. This paper attempts to bridge this gap by exploring the evolution of EVMs into a blockchain-based electoral system under two prisms: sociologically, it investigates the trust deficit, social inequalities, and opposition to electoral change from below; technologically, it outlines a secure and scalable design to guarantee transparency and auditability.
The main goals are threefold: one, to evaluate the sociological demand for blockchain voting by measuring trust shortfalls and biases in present Indian practice; two, to develop a blockchain-enabled voting architecture centred on security, scalability, and access; and three, to assess the societal effects and policy implications of such a shift, based on qualitative techniques such as literature reviews, case studies, and survey-based analysis. In doing so, this research hopes to add to the debate regarding decentralized governance, providing a model that not only consolidates India’s electoral integrity but also serves as a global benchmark for technology-enabled democracy.
Sociological Reason behind Transformation
The transformation of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) into a blockchain-based voting system in India is not merely a technical upgrade but a sociological imperative, necessitated by the erosion of trust in electoral processes and the persistent inequities in voting access. Being a democratic country with a stratified and diverse population, India has challenges in ensuring its electoral system is seen to be legitimate and inclusive.
Trust Deficit in EVMs
Trust is an underlying component of any democratic system, being the foundation upon which the legitimacy of election results is established. In India, though, the advent of EVMs has been beset by increasing distrust, especially after their general acceptance in 2004. The distrust came to a crescendo during the Lok Sabha polls in 2019, when Hyderabad, Telangana, was rocked by accusations of EVM tampering. There were reports of differences between EVM counts and voter turnout figures, with opposition parties such as the Telugu Desam Party alleging that some 5% of votes in some constituencies went uncounted (Rao, 2020). While the Election Commission of India (ECI) ruled out these allegations based on technical checks such as Voter-Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT), the controversy fueled public anxiety. A Lokniti-CSDS survey in 2021 revealed that 62% of respondents, especially those in rural communities, questioned the reliability of EVMs, with many claiming a lack of transparency in the electoral process (Lokniti-CSDS, 2021). Bourdieu (1991) argues that institutions derive legitimacy from the symbolic capital they accrue through public perception of fairness and authority. When EVMs are perceived as opaque or manipulable, the ECI’s symbolic capital diminishes, weakening the democratic process.
The trust deficit is further compounded by historical and cultural factors in India. In rural areas, where levels of literacy and access to technology education are lower and about 66% of rural adults are digitally illiterate (NSSO, 2023)—EVMs tend to be seen with suspicion as “black boxes” run by remote powers.
This is because there is a general mistrust of central power, which has its roots in colonial rule and post-independence bureaucratic inefficiencies. Max Weber’s legitimacy theory sheds more light here, noting that authority needs to be seen as rational and fair in order to be legitimate (Weber, 1922). If rural voters, who make up ≈ 65% of India’s electorate, are made to feel left out of comprehending the EVM process, the legitimacy of the electoral process is undermined. Additionally, the absence of viable mechanisms for public verification—albeit in the presence of VVPAT—magnifies this problem since voters cannot independently verify that their votes are recorded correctly. Blockchain voting, through its immutable and publicly auditable ledger, solves this by ensuring transparency and verifiability and thus restoring confidence and the symbolic capital of India’s electoral institutions.
Social Inequities in Voting Access
Apart from the faith deficit, EVM-based electoral process maintains the social inequalities bearing disproportionately on deprived sections, destabilizing the equality of participation ideal of democracy. India’s social and economic contours are characterized by sharp inequalities that manifest in urban-rural binaries, caste formations, and sexual disparities conditioning access to electoral channels. The voter turnout in rural areas trails urban areas by 12%, as only 67% of voters in rural areas voted in the 2019 elections against 79% in urban areas, according to the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO, 2023). This difference is especially evident in marginalized groups like Adivasi (tribal) populations, who have an added disadvantage owing to geographical isolation and institutional neglect. As an example, in Jharkhand, where Adivasi communities are prevalent, polling centres tend to be 10–15 kilometres distant from villages, involving strenuous travel that is discouraged (Kumar, 2021). Women members in the community experience even more challenges since cultural values and child-care activities restrict their mobility, leading to a gender turnout gap of 8% in rural India (NSSO, 2023).
These inequities can be understood in terms of Amartya Sen’s capability approach, which highlights the significance of making sure there are equal opportunities for people to be able to exercise their freedom (Sen, 1999). Voting involves offering not only the right to vote but also the capability to vote, which is delayed by structural obstacles. For instance, voters with disabilities have a harder time, with just 5% of India’s polling stations being accessible, as per a 2022 report by the Disability Rights India Foundation (DRIF, 2022). The absence of digital literacy makes it even more difficult, especially in rural areas, as EVMs demand a simple grasp of electronic interfaces that most voters do not possess. This digital divide reflects wider social exclusions, as it is usually the most marginalized who are last to be included in the benefits of technological progress, a process Nancy Fraser calls “participatory parity”—the requirement for conditions of equality in order to participate in social processes (Fraser, 2005). The existing EVM system, although theoretically efficient, does not do anything to overcome these inequalities.
Blockchain voting has a revolutionary answer through the use of technology to bridge these gaps. The suggested framework with Decentralized Identity (DID) system, biometrics-based authentication and Artificial Intelligence-based fraud detection, provides secure onboarding of voters. By facilitating home voting or secure booths with internet connectivity, as detailed in the abstract, blockchain voting has the potential to level geography-related barriers, rendering participation easier for Adivasi communities and women. In addition, the transparency of the system, where votes are recorded on a permissioned ledger such as Hyperledger Fabric and publicly traceable through eci.gov.in, empowers the voters by providing them with agency to confirm their enrolment.
Lastly, the sociological justification for a shift from EVMs to blockchain voting is two-pronged: it fills the deficit of trust against which India’s electoral system falls short and bridges the social injustices that prevent marginalized groups from full participation. Blockchain voting, based on the focus on openness, security, and accessibility, presents a bridge for restoring faith and guaranteeing access on an equal footing. It also aligns with the broader ambitions of democratic justice and participation.
These social imperatives provide the basis upon which the technological and policy approaches analyzed in the following sections are posited, placing stress on interdisciplinary collaboration for India’s electoral reform.
Blockchain Voting: Technical Design and Security
To understand blockchain voting, we need to understand what blockchain is and why we need blockchain. As the name suggests, “block” refers to a container where information (usually transaction data) is stored, and “chain” refers to the way each block is linked to the previous one, forming a continuous chain. Blockchain is a distributed ledger technology (DLT) where transactions are grouped and recorded in blocks.
These blocks are verified by network participants called nodes—often validators or miners—depending on the consensus mechanism used (e.g., Proof of Work or Proof of Stake). Once a block is verified and finalized, it is added to the chain, and it includes a cryptographic hash of the previous block. This linking ensures the integrity of the entire chain and enables immutability, meaning that once recorded, the data in any block cannot be altered without changing all subsequent blocks.
Blockchain is valuable in voting systems because it provides transparency, security, and immutability by recording votes in a decentralized and tamper-resistant ledger. Each vote is stored as a transaction within a block, linked cryptographically to previous blocks, which prevents unauthorized changes and builds public trust. This approach reduces fraud, ensures voters’ confidence, and allows independent verification of election outcomes, addressing major issues of traditional voting systems.
Architecture Overview
The architectural flow provides a secure and transparent blockchain-based voting system, which leverages the power of Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) for managing the voters’ identities, multimodal biometric verification to verify the voters, and robust AI-driven anti-fraud mechanisms. This supports both digital (online) and physical (offline) scenarios, optimized for diverse user segments (urban and rural population of India).
Step 1: User Initiates Registration. The voter initiates registration and selects the appropriate voting method based on availability and convenience: Online (Mobile App); Offline (Physical Booth).
Step 2 (Online Flow): AI-Enhanced Facial Biometric Verification. For online onboarding, voters undergo robust facial biometric verification: Voter submits or captures live facial imagery through the voting app. AI-based Liveness Detection ensures real-time anti-fraud verification: Detects photo/video spoofing, masks, or impersonation attempts. Checks liveliness using dynamic challenges (e.g., blink detection, head movement, micro-expressions). Facial biometrics matched securely against government authorized databases (e.g., Aadhaar).
Step 3 (Online): One-time DID Issuance. Upon successful biometric validation: A cryptographically secure one-time DID is generated. DID credential stored securely in the voter’s mobile digital wallet. Blockchain transaction logs voter onboarding, preventing reuse.
Step 4: DID Secure Storage (Digital Wallet). Voters securely store their one-time DIDs in encrypted mobile wallets, maintaining private cryptographic keys securely. In this way, the voter is owner of their own identity, and no privacy is breached or violated.
Step 5: (Offline Booth Flow): Multimodal Biometric Verification (Facial or Fingerprint). Offline voting booth verification involves comprehensive manual and biometric validation, such as manual ID check and physical identity document verification. Multimodal biometric verification: Voters provide either fingerprint scans or facial biometric data.
Step 6: Offline DID Issuance (Physical QR-code DID). After biometric verification at offline booths: The system securely generates and prints an encrypted QR code embedding DID credentials. QR code serves as a physical, offline DID credential to authenticate voters securely at the voting terminal.
Step 7: Voter Authentication (Online and Offline). Online: Voter authenticates via DID wallet app using the Aries DID Resolver API. Offline: QR-based authentication at booth voting terminals linked to Aries/Indy DID resolver.
Step 8: One-time Token Generation. Upon successful DID authentication, the voting application generates a cryptographically secure, single-use token (JWT Tokens or cryptographic randomization methods) allowing voters to cast precisely one vote. Immediately after token use, the voter’s DID and token become invalid, eliminating reuse.
Step 9: Vote Casting and Automatic DID Expiration. Votes cast with one-time tokens are cryptographically signed and recorded on the blockchain, and simultaneously invalidate the voter’s DID and associated token, ensuring strict one-time use compliance.
Step 10: Immutable Blockchain Vote Storage. Votes are immutably stored as cryptographically secured transactions within Hyperledger Fabric’s ledger, providing auditable transparency, voter anonymity, and election integrity.
Step 11: Blockchain-based Audit and Transparency. An integrated audit layer provides verifiable public transparency, facilitating independent verification of election outcomes through blockchain explorers and custom dashboards.
Step 12: Government Pre-Registered Voter List Integration. Integration with governmental voter databases ensures that only eligible voters participate, marking registered voters to prevent duplicate entries.
Technical Stack Summary
| Layer/Process | Technologies Utilized |
| Blockchain | Hyperledger Fabric |
| DID Framework | Hyperledger Indy/Aries |
| Digital Wallet | Hyperledger Aries Mobile Wallets |
| Biometric Verification | AWS Rekognition, Azure Face API, Suprema fingerprint scanners |
| AI-based Liveness Detection | FaceTec, DeepFace, BioID |
| Smart Contracts (Chaincode) | Golang/Node.js |
| Front-End (Web/Mobile) | React.js/Next.js |
| QR DID Generation | Node.js QR-code libraries, RSA/ECDSA signatures |
| Data Encryption | AES-256, Secure Enclave (mobile wallets) |
| Audit Tools | Hyperledger Explorer, Grafana, Prometheus, ELK Stack |
| Infrastructure & Deployment | Kubernetes, Docker, Offline-Capable Hardware |
Scalability considerations
Scalability is crucial and most challenging aspect of any blockchain application. Especially when you are working on blockchain-based voting systems where a huge amount of traffic is expected in a day or two and you cannot compromise in throughput and high availability of the application. The proposed architecture employs Hyperledger Fabric, a permissioned blockchain renowned for high throughput, allowing thousands of transactions per second, essential during high voter turnout periods. Fabric’s flexible channel architecture further optimizes throughput by segregating workloads and enabling parallel processing of votes from different regions or constituencies. Infrastructure scalability is managed through container orchestration with Kubernetes and Docker, enabling dynamic resource allocation, automatic scaling, and high availability. Elastic infrastructure ensures stable operation during peak voting hours and minimizes latency. For offline scenarios, local nodes periodically synchronize securely to the main ledger, balancing security and scalability without constant connectivity. AI-driven biometric verification systems are designed with horizontally scalable cloud-based services, ensuring that simultaneous verifications during registration and authentication don’t become performance bottlenecks. Data encryption and DID management through Hyperledger Indy and Aries are lightweight and highly scalable, further enhancing responsiveness. Thus, combining Hyperledger Fabric’s high-performance blockchain capabilities, cloud-based biometric verification scalability, and robust containerized infrastructure ensures seamless scalability, maintaining high performance and reliability even during mass participation elections.
Legal and Regulatory Framework
India’s legal and regulatory environment currently lacks explicit provisions directly addressing blockchain technology in electoral processes or its associated fields. The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), governs voter registration, election conduct, and vote counting, providing a robust yet traditional legal framework. However, this Act predates digital technology advancements and does not explicitly cater to electronic or blockchain-based voting methodologies. As blockchain voting solutions proves it efficiency and transparency, amendments to the RPA will be required to legally validate such technology-based voting approach, ensuring enforceability and legitimacy within the electoral framework (iPleaders, 2023).
The Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), on the other hand, gives the foundational legal basis for electronic governance by recognizing electronic records and digital signatures as legally equivalent to physical documentation. Section 4 of this Act is instrumental in potentially validating electronic votes as legally binding records. However, specific mention or guidelines around blockchain technology is not present in the Act anywhere, necessitating supplementary regulatory clarification or legislative amendments. Moreover, the Aadhaar Act, while pioneering biometric authentication in India, poses very complex legal considerations when linked to voting processes. The Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021, which attempted to integrate Aadhaar data with voter IDs, encountered robust opposition over concerns regarding voter privacy and potential exclusion due to data mismatches or inaccuracies. Thus, leveraging biometric authentication in blockchain voting frameworks must be navigated carefully within existing privacy statutes and guidelines (Brookings, 2022).
A critical impending legislation is the Personal Data Protection Bill (PDPB), anticipated to substantially shape data handling, particularly concerning sensitive biometric information. The PDPB emphasizes user consent, data minimization, and secure handling of personal information. Given blockchain-based voting’s inherent reliance on secure data storage and transparent yet privacy-preserving data management, compliance with the PDPB becomes paramount. The bill’s provisions regarding explicit consent and stringent security measures would require any blockchain-enabled voting system to incorporate robust encryption, secure data anonymization, and stringent access controls, ensuring voters’ biometric and identity data are safeguarded against misuse (Global Legal Insights, 2025).
Adapting blockchain voting to India’s legal ecosystem entails a multi-faceted strategy involving legislative adjustments, technological pilots, and multi-stakeholder collaboration. Initially, amending existing laws such as the RPA and IT Act to explicitly acknowledge blockchain-based electoral processes is required. Clear legal provisions recognizing blockchain records as admissible evidence in electoral disputes would significantly support the legitimacy and acceptance of blockchain voting systems. In the meantime, implementing controlled pilot programs or regulatory sandboxes, endorsed by the Election Commission of India, could practically demonstrate blockchain’s applicability, security benefits, and challenges. These pilots would enable policymakers, technology developers, and election authorities to collaboratively refine technical aspects and legal frameworks, fostering informed regulatory evolution (CoinTrust, 2023).
Additionally, proactive stakeholder engagement involving governmental bodies, legal experts, technology partners, and civil society organizations is crucial. Such collaboration can help develop comprehensive policies, clearly outlining the use, storage, and protection of biometric and digital identity data within blockchain environments, aligning with privacy and security norms under the evolving data protection landscape. Infrastructure readiness, specifically addressing India’s significant digital divide, is another critical adaptation aspect. Investments in enhancing internet connectivity, particularly in rural regions, combined with robust offline synchronization mechanisms, are essential for ensuring equitable access to blockchain voting systems. These infrastructural strategies must align closely with regulatory developments, ensuring that deployment is technologically sound and legally compliant (International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, 2023).
Current Electoral Laws in India
India’s electoral system, rooted in Article 324 of the Constitution, is upheld by the Election Commission of India (ECI), an autonomous body overseeing elections to Parliament, State Legislatures, and constitutional offices. The Representation of the People Acts of 1950 and 1951 form the legal backbone, governing electoral rolls, constituency delimitation, candidate eligibility, and election conduct. While the 1950 Act manages voter rolls and constituency boundaries, its reliance on outdated 1971 census data skews representation, disadvantaging marginalized rural areas. The 1951 Act outlines electoral conduct and empowers the ECI to implement the Model Code of Conduct, though its non-binding nature limits enforcement.
Supplementary laws like the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act (1952), the Delimitation Act (2002), and the Election Laws (Amendment) Act (2021) further shape the system. The 2021 Aadhaar-voter ID linkage aims to prevent duplication but raises privacy and exclusion concerns, especially for vulnerable groups. Modern challenges—such as doubts around EVM reliability and the absence of compulsory paper ballots—continue to erode public trust. Emerging solutions like blockchain voting may offer a more transparent and equitable alternative, crucial for sustaining democratic integrity.
Proposed Legal Adaptations
Key legal reforms are essential to enable blockchain-based voting in India. The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) must be amended to explicitly recognize blockchain-based voting. This includes legal validation of blockchain records for voter verification, ballot issuance, result tallying, and electoral dispute resolution (iPleaders, 2023). Likewise, the Information Technology Act, 2000 should be updated to encompass blockchain, granting legal status to digital identities, smart contracts, and transactions. Clear regulatory guidelines under the IT Act would strengthen the legal foundation for blockchain use in elections (Global Legal Insights, 2025).
Privacy is another critical pillar. The forthcoming Personal Data Protection Bill (PDPB) emphasizes consent-based processing and strict privacy norms. Blockchain voting systems must comply with these by defining legal procedures for biometric data handling—covering secure collection, storage, anonymization (e.g., via zero-knowledge proofs), and deletion after elections. Lifecycle policies and transparent consent mechanisms will be vital to ensure voter trust and legal clarity (International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, 2023).
Finally, regulatory sandboxes supervised by the Election Commission of India (ECI) should be introduced for controlled trials of blockchain voting. These real-world experiments will highlight practical challenges and inform legislative updates (CoinTrust, 2023). A multi-stakeholder committee—comprising legal experts, technologists, privacy advocates, and civil society—should guide this transition. It would assess sandbox findings, draft laws, and align data protection protocols. Together, these reforms will establish a secure, legally sound, and inclusive blockchain voting ecosystem (Brookings Institution, 2022).
Public Trust and Community Attitudes
The shift from Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) to a blockchain electoral system in India relies not only on technical feasibility but also on societal acceptance and inclusivity. Public confidence in the democratic process, already under pressure through assumptions regarding EVM vulnerabilities, needs to be restored through processes that are transparent and open to people from all walks of life. This section looks at perceptions of EVMs vs. blockchain voting, evaluates the inclusivity and accessibility of the suggested system, and discusses ways for community engagement to build trust.
Perception of EVMs vs. Blockchain
Public attitudes towards electoral systems have a direct impact on their legitimacy, a notion based on Max Weber’s rational-legal theory of authority, which argues that institutional trust arises from perceived transparency and fairness (Weber, 1922). In India, EVMs have been increasingly questioned, especially after the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, when claims of tampering in Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh states fueled public dissatisfaction. According to a 2021 Lokniti-CSDS survey, 62% of respondents raised questions about EVM reliability, with youth between the ages of 18–25 displaying greater scepticism at 70% (Lokniti-CSDS, 2021). Such mistrust is frequently increased in rural environments, where constrained technological familiarity—66% of rural adults have low digital literacy (NSSO, 2023)—induces notions that EVMs are inscrutable systems driven by far-away powers. On the other hand, blockchain voting, by virtue of transparency and public verifiability, can transform such perceptions. Insights are gained through some case studies in Estonia, where blockchain-enabled e-voting has been conducted since 2005. In 2019, Estonia realized a 44% online voter turnout, where surveys revealed 75% of users had trust in the system because it is verifiable (Vassil et al., 2016).
In India, a pilot survey of Telangana in 2022, after the state’s blockchain-based land record system, revealed that 68% of respondents were more confident in blockchain technology for public services because of its transparency (Government of Telangana, 2022).
A West Bengal case study, where blockchain was applied to digitize 50,000 land records in 2023, shows the inclusivity potential. The project gave rural farmers digital access to land titles through mobile phones, boosting participation in property transactions by 30% (Government of West Bengal, 2023).
Community Engagement Role
Establishing trust in blockchain voting involves proactive engagement of the community, especially within an environment in which there is widespread distrust of centralized systems. Within India, rural communities tend to depend upon local leaders for information, so engaging stakeholders such as these is essential. In the 2021 Kerala local elections, the state government effectively leveraged Self-Help Groups (SHGs) to conduct awareness campaigns aimed at educating women about Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). This grassroots initiative led to a 5% increase in female voter turnout, demonstrating the power of community-based outreach in enhancing electoral participation. For blockchain voting, similar strategies can be employed, involving Anganwadi workers and village panchayats to conduct workshops on the system’s transparency and accessibility features.
Societal Impact and Policy Implications
The implementation of a blockchain-enabled voting system in India has the potential to redefine the social landscape by increasing empowerment, harmonizing with national policy initiatives, and redressing anticipated challenges.
Empowerment and Equity
The blockchain voting process can greatly empower marginalized groups through the assurance that their voices are heard in the democratic process of India. As discussed in Section 2 of this paper, groups such as Adivasi communities, rural women, and specially abled voters face systemic barriers to participation, perpetuating their marginalization. The proposed system, with its home-based voting and safe booth options, directly addresses these barriers. A pilot of blockchain-based public service delivery in Andhra Pradesh in 2022, for example, showed how improving access by 25% for rural women demonstrates this opportunity (Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2022). By making voting secure and accessible, the system can also enhance engagement from marginalized groups, enhancing feelings of agency and belonging.
This empowerment goes beyond access to have an impact on social equity. Transparency of Blockchain making votes auditable in public can curb electoral fraud perceptions, disproportionately burdening marginalized people who tend to feel their votes are tampered with by powerful groups. During the 2019 elections, Dalit communities within Uttar Pradesh had complained of voter suppression, where 15% said their votes were not registered correctly (Dalit Human Rights Watch, 2020). Blockchain voting eliminates such risks since all votes are verifiable, thus enhancing trust among such groups.
Policy Alignment
The blockchain voting process is perfectly integrated with India’s national policy landscapes, especially Digital India and the objectives of NITI Aayog’s technology-enabled governance. Digital India, which started in 2015, proposes to digitally empower citizens by developing connectivity and availability of services to 100% of the country’s rural regions by 2025 (Ministry of Electronics and IT, 2023). To implement this alignment, policy suggestions involve creating a joint task force of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and NITI Aayog to monitor a blockchain pilot for voting in one state (for example, Telangana) by 2026 and later expand it nationwide by 2029. Such a gradual step will allow policy alignment without any hindrances like logistical hurdles in training poll officials on blockchain technologies.
Challenges and Risks
In spite of its promise, blockchain voting suffers from a host of challenges that need to be overcome before it can thrive. Social pushback is very real, more so in remote rural communities characterized by low exposure to digital competence. It is estimated (NSSO 2023) that 66% of adult rural dwellers are not equipped with digital know-how, opening them up to suspicion of new voting systems. Moreover, technical risks, i.e., cybersecurity attacks, cannot be discounted. Implementation challenges, such as the expense of infrastructure (e.g., establishing safe booths), may also put a strain on resources, with a Telangana pilot estimated to cost INR 500 crore (NITI Aayog, 2021). To counteract these risks, there needs to be a multi-faceted response: public campaigns to educate rural voters, as seen in Kerala’s SHG model (Kerala State Election Commission, 2021); investment in cybersecurity training for electoral officials; and phased funding via public-private partnerships to help keep costs in check. Taking action on these issues ahead of time ensures that the blockchain voting system can fulfil its potential of empowerment and equity and help make the democratic process more resilient.
Implementation Roadmap and Technical Feasibility
A blockchain-based voting system will be implemented through a meticulous phase-wise strategy. The development process is structured into six distinct phases, each focusing on critical aspects such as system architecture, voter authentication, and vote immutability. Initial phases will involve preliminary planning and requirement analysis with feasibility checks, then moving on design, prototyping, and technical Validation, after this pilot deployment and field testing will be done to evaluate the strength and weakness of the approach, based on the feedback from previous phase refinement, optimization and security will be the focus before going live on a large scale. Special attention will be given to addressing challenges like scalability for millions of voters and accessibility for diverse populations with varying levels of digital literacy.
The development will also prioritize offline voting capabilities to cater to regions with limited internet connectivity, a crucial factor in India’s diverse landscape. Each phase will incorporate stakeholder feedback from the Election Commission of India (ECI), cybersecurity experts, and voters to refine the application. Testing will progress from controlled simulations to small-scale pilots, ensuring the system is robust enough to handle real-world complexities. By resolving issues like cybersecurity vulnerabilities and logistical constraints iteratively, the application will be prepared for large-scale deployment.
The rollout will commence with municipal elections in metro cities like Delhi, Mumbai, and Bengaluru, leveraging their advanced digital infrastructure to test the system’s performance. Success in these urban centres will pave the way for expansion to Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities, where offline voting booths will be rigorously evaluated to ensure accessibility in low-connectivity areas. Following transparent and accurate outcomes, the system will be piloted in a state election, starting with a low-population state to minimize risks, before scaling to other states.
The final phase will integrate the blockchain-based system into Lok Sabha elections, marking a revolutionary shift in India’s electoral process. This gradual rollout ensures the system gains public trust through demonstrated reliability and transparency at each stage. By addressing India’s unique electoral challenges, the blockchain voting system aims to set a new standard for democratic participation, enhancing security and voter confidence nationwide.
Phased Implementation
Phase 1: Preliminary Planning and Requirement Analysis (0-2 Months)
In the initial phase, comprehensive requirement analysis is crucial. This includes identifying key stakeholders (election commissions, technology partners, government institutions, NGOs, and local authorities), defining precise technical requirements, and assessing infrastructural capabilities. Clearly define system specifications, security protocols, scalability requirements, and compliance considerations (e.g., data privacy and government regulations). Evaluate existing IT infrastructure, including data centres, internet connectivity, and available hardware. Special attention is required for rural areas to identify gaps in connectivity and electricity supply. Engagement with Aadhaar authorities for biometric data access and verification APIs.
Phase 2: Design, Prototyping, and Technical Validation (2-6 Months)
In the second phase, the focus shifts toward designing and prototyping the blockchain-based voting application and DID system. A proof-of-concept (PoC) is developed to demonstrate technical feasibility, incorporating Hyperledger Fabric blockchain, DID frameworks (Hyperledger Indy/Aries), and biometric authentication mechanisms. Develop detailed system architecture, including chaincode logic, DID management, voting workflows, and audit capabilities. Rapidly create a functional prototype demonstrating critical functionalities, such as DID issuance, biometric verification (facial and fingerprint), blockchain transactions, and audit trails. Conduct internal testing and gather feedback from experts and stakeholders to refine the prototype.
Phase 3: Pilot Deployment and Field Testing (6-12 Months)
This critical phase includes controlled deployment in selected pilot locations representing diverse demographic and geographic areas. Pilot testing enables the evaluation of system reliability, performance, and user acceptance under real-world conditions. Identify representative pilot areas including urban locations with robust internet connectivity and rural regions with limited connectivity. Install physical booth infrastructure with biometric scanners, voting terminals, local blockchain nodes, QR-code printers, and internet connectivity. Conduct comprehensive user education and training sessions to familiarize voters and local authorities with the new voting process. Conduct mock elections to identify system bottlenecks, usability challenges, and areas needing improvement.
Phase 4: Refinement, Optimization, and Security Audits (12-18 Months)
Following pilot testing, extensive refinement and optimization take place. Emphasis is placed on addressing issues identified during the pilot, optimizing system performance, and enhancing security mechanisms. Implement performance enhancements and usability improvements based on pilot feedback. Engage external cybersecurity firms and compliance auditors for detailed system audits to validate blockchain security, DID integrity, biometric reliability, and adherence to privacy regulations. Fine-tune cloud and local infrastructure for optimal load balancing, auto-scaling, and high availability. Extensive penetration testing, vulnerability assessments, and auditing blockchain smart contracts (chaincode). Strengthening biometric verification algorithms to mitigate fraud attempts and improving the robustness of AI-based liveness detection.
Phase 5: Full-scale Deployment and Rollout (18-24 Months)
After comprehensive testing and optimization, the system is deployed for nationwide rollout. This phase involves meticulous scaling of infrastructure, network expansion, comprehensive voter education, and continuous monitoring. National Infrastructure. Expand blockchain networks nationwide, including regional nodes to handle millions of concurrent voting transactions. Roll out booth infrastructure nationally, ensuring availability of biometric equipment, reliable internet or offline capabilities, and secure terminals in both urban and rural locations. Nationwide voter education campaigns through multimedia channels (TV, radio, mobile apps, local events) to ensure smooth voter adoption. Establish real-time monitoring and technical support teams to ensure seamless operations during actual voting events. Robust network redundancy and disaster recovery mechanisms implemented to maintain high availability and fault tolerance.
Phase 6: Post-implementation Review, Maintenance, and Continuous Improvement (Post 24 Months). Post-implementation, regular maintenance, system upgrades, and continuous improvement become essential to sustain long-term success and operational reliability. Periodic upgrades to blockchain frameworks, biometric algorithms, DID protocols, and security measures. Institutionalize mechanisms to gather continuous user feedback for system refinement. Continuous research into emerging technologies (e.g., quantum-resistant cryptography, advanced biometric algorithms) to future-proof the system.
Technical Feasibility
The outlined phased implementation roadmap demonstrates high technical feasibility, leveraging proven technologies and frameworks such as Hyperledger Fabric, Aries/Indy DID protocols, container orchestration (Docker, Kubernetes), and robust biometric authentication (AWS Rekognition, Suprema scanners). Infrastructure choices ensure scalability, reliability, and security, and they are capable of supporting nationwide election workloads. The proactive integration of advanced security audits, AI-driven biometric liveness detection, and rigorous offline synchronization mechanisms further supports technical viability, assuring all stakeholders of the system’s readiness for practical implementation.
This strategic approach provides a clear and achievable pathway from initial planning to full-scale national deployment, effectively navigating the complexities associated with introducing blockchain-based voting in diverse and geographically challenging environments such as India.
Conclusion
India’s electoral system stands at a crossroads, where persistent distrust in Electronic Voting Machines and systemic inequities threaten democratic legitimacy. This research has illuminated the urgent need for reform, revealing how 62% of rural voters doubt EVM reliability and how marginalized groups such as Adivasi communities and rural women—face significant barriers to participation. These challenges erode public confidence and exclude the most vulnerable, undermining the principles of fairness and inclusion that define democracy. By proposing a blockchain-based voting system, this study offers a transformative solution that bridges sociological imperatives with technical innovation. The system’s transparent ledger, built on platforms like Hyperledger Fabric, ensures every vote is verifiable via eci.gov.in, restoring trust through auditability. Simultaneously, its integration of Decentralized Identity systems and accessible voting options, such as home-based voting or secure booths, empowers those long excluded, fostering equitable participation across India’s diverse electorate.
The path forward, however, demands careful navigation of legal and social landscapes. India’s current electoral laws lack provisions for such technological integration, necessitating amendments to support transparency while addressing privacy concerns, particularly for those without Aadhaar access. Socially, the 66% rural digital illiteracy rate poses a hurdle, yet grassroots engagement through Anganwadi workers and panchayats can cultivate readiness, as demonstrated by successful voter education models in Kerala. Aligning with Digital India and NITI Aayog’s blockchain strategy, a pilot in Telangana by 2026 could test this framework, setting the stage for a nationwide rollout by 2029. Looking ahead, exploring quantum-resistant blockchain technologies will ensure long-term security, while longitudinal studies on voter trust, especially in conflict zones like Jammu and Kashmir, can deepen our understanding of democratic resilience. This research not only charts a course for India to lead in technology-enabled democracy but also reaffirms the power of inclusive, transparent elections to rebuild trust and strengthen the democratic fabric for future generations.
References
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press.
Brookings Institution. (2022). Lessons from India’s attempt to marry biometric and voter ID databases. 03bd465f-afd6-4e7e-9d21-6ca04f8c78b1.pdf
CoinTrust. (2023). India advances digital governance with national blockchain framework. https://www.cointrust.com
Dalit Human Rights Watch. (2020). Voter suppression in Uttar Pradesh: A report. https://www.dhrw.org
DRIF. (2022). Accessibility of polling stations in India: A report.
Election Commission of India. (2004). Report on the use of electronic voting machines. https://eci.gov.in
Espeo Software. (2018). Deploying Hyperledger Fabric on Kubernetes. https://espeo.eu
Fraser, N. (2005). Reframing justice in a globalizing world. New Left Review, 36, 69–88.
Global Legal Insights. (2025). Blockchain & cryptocurrency laws and regulations 2025 – India. https://www.globallegalinsights.com
Government of Andhra Pradesh. (2022). Blockchain for public service delivery: A pilot study. AP State Technology Services.
Government of Telangana. (2022). Blockchain for land records: A case study. Telangana State Technology Services.
Government of West Bengal. (2023). Blockchain land records: Annual report. West Bengal Land Department.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.11.017
International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, 6(3), 1234–1256.
International Journal of Law Management & Humanities. (2023). Biometric data, identification and authentication in India – Legal framework, challenges and impact.
iPleaders. (2023). Laws and regulation of blockchain along with its status in India. https://blog.ipleaders.in
Kerala State Election Commission. (2021). Local election report 2021. KSEC.
Khan, K. M., Arshad, J., & Khan, M. M. (2020). Investigating performance constraints for blockchain-based secure e-voting system. Future Generation Computer Systems, 105, 13–26.
Kumar, A. (2021). Electoral participation of Adivasi communities in Jharkhand. Journal of Tribal Studies, 15(2), 45–60.
Lokniti-CSDS. (2021). National Election Study 2021. Centre for the Study of Developing Societies.
Ministry of Electronics and IT. (2023). Digital India progress report. Government of India.
Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
NITI Aayog. (2021). National strategy on blockchain. Government of India.
NSSO. (2023). Socio-economic survey: Digital literacy and voter turnout. Government of India.
Pew Research Center. (2024). Global attitudes survey 2024. Pew Research Center.
Rao, S. (2020). EVMs and electoral trust: A sociological perspective. Economic and Political Weekly, 55(12), 45–52.
Reserve Bank of India. (2023). Pilot rollout of central bank digital currency [Press release]. https://www.rbi.org.in
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.
Vassil, K., Solvak, M., Vinkel, P., Trechsel, A. H., & Alvarez, R. M. (2016). The diffusion of internet voting: Usage patterns of internet voting in Estonia between 2005 and 2015. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 453–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.06.001
Weber, M. (1922). Economy and society. University of California Press.