Co-author Introduction Our country’s election is a civilizational, cultural and even festive time where over a billion people come together in a shared national act. It is that crucial time when the Constitution places complete power in the hands of every adult citizen, regardless of wealth, status, caste, religion, or social privilege. As the Election Commission of India has often described in its post-election reports, the general elections are ‘the most diverse expression of popular will in human history.’ The sheer magnitude of the exercise is staggering, over 912 million voters1 thousands of political candidates, millions of polling personnel, and polling stations in terrain as remote as the Siachen base camp and the Sundarbans. In India, the right to vote is a statutory right, and elections are governed by Article 326 of the Indian Constitution, which establishes universal adult suffrage, allowing every citizen aged 18 or above to vote, subject to the qualifications prescribed by law. The detailed provisions relating to registration of voters, conduct of elections and disqualifications are laid down in the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and 1951, as the exercise of the right to elect depends entirely on statutory provisions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has consistently held that the right to vote is not a Fundamental Right, but a right created by the Constitution and regulated by Parliament. The freedom to free and fair elections and express choice is protected under Article 19(1)(a) as part of freedom of speech and expression, a fundamental right. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of Jyoti Basu v Debi Ghoshal, 1982, that “the right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is anomalously enough neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It is pure and simple a statutory right.” Yet the vast and intricate mechanism of ‘election’ is fragile. Elections are susceptible to disruption, manipulation, distortion, or corruption through various means, including digital deception, psychological warfare, misinformation campaigns, and foreign influence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975),2 “Democracy is meaningful only if elections are free and fair.” This principle was elevated to the level of the Basic Structure of the Constitution, meaning no law, no government, and no authority can dilute or compromise this requirement. Chapter IXA, ‘Offences Relating to Elections,’ was not part of the original Indian Penal Code (IPC)1860. It was introduced into the IPC by the Indian Elections Offences and Inquiries Act, 1920. Chapter IXA aimed to codify specific offences related to the electoral process within the main body of Indian criminal law to ensure free and fair elections and protect the free exercise of electoral rights. Before 1920, laws regarding election offenses were likely scattered or less formally defined. The 1920 Act brought these specific offences under one chapter (Sections 171-A to 171-I) of the IPC. The Indian Elections Offences and Inquiries Act, 1920 was enacted to provide punishment for malpractices related to elections and to establish procedures for conducting inquiries into disputed elections to legislative bodies constituted under the Government of India Act. It was passed by the Indian Legislative Council and received the Governor General’s assent on September 14, 1920. The Act extended to the whole of British India and aimed to address corrupt practices such as bribery, undue influence, personation, false statements, and illegal payments during elections. This Act also amended Indian Penal Code by inserting new provisions specifically dealing with election offenses, now found in Chapter IX-A (Sections 171-A to 171-I)3. It empowered authorities to take various actions for investigating election malpractices, including enforcing the attendance of witnesses, compelling document production, examining witnesses under oath, and conducting searches. The Act was significant because it laid down a legal framework for safeguarding the integrity of elections and provided a mechanism to punish electoral offenses systematically. The transition to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita marked a historic shift. Enacted in 2023 and effective from July 1, 2024, the BNS replaced the IPC with a more modern, decolonized code. Electoral offences were consolidated into Chapter IX (Sections 169-177), retaining the core structure of the old provisions while enhancing clarity and penalties.4 These rules are made to keep our elections clean, fair and free from cheating. The law covers actions like giving money for votes, threatening or pressuring voters, using fake identities to cast votes, spreading false information about candidates, breaking spending rules, or misusing power at polling stations. Given this foundational role of elections in India’s constitutional arrangement, it becomes essential to understand what harms elections, how such harm has evolved, and how Indian law has tried, and often struggled, to keep pace with the changing nature of these threats. This article attempts to explore the journey in depth, through a detailed legal, social and national security analysis, it evaluates what ‘harm to elections’ truly means in today’s India; how past laws, particularly the colonial-era IPC, tried to address these harms; how the BNS modifies and modernizes the framework; and what gaps, challenges and opportunities remain. Background to offences related to elections under ipc The concept of offenses against elections in India traces back to the colonial era, when the British administration sought to regulate electoral conduct to maintain order in a nascent representative system. The Indian Penal Code of 1860 (IPC), enacted under British rule, laid the foundational legal framework by criminalizing acts like bribery (Section 171B), undue influence (Section 171C), and personation at elections (Section 171D), which were seen as direct threats to fair polling. These provisions were influenced by English common law and aimed at preventing corruption in limited franchise elections during the Raj. Post-independence, with the adoption of universal adult suffrage in 1950, election offenses evolved amid growing political competition. The Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, expanded on IPC by defining corrupt practices such as booth capturing, intimidation, and electoral fraud, making them punishable to ensure free and fair elections. The 1970s marked a dark chapter with the Emergency (1975-1977), when criminals began entering politics…

The industrial sector is at a crossroads. As the engine of the global economy, it consumes 37% of global energy while facing tightening carbon regulations worldwide. Manufacturers must now contend with unstable energy costs, resource scarcity, and the urgent call for climate action. The pressure is no longer just to produce more, but to produce smarter, cleaner, and with true sustainability. The Hidden Cost of Traditional Operations For decades, factory operations were highly inefficient, struggling to fix problems only after they occurred. The old ‘run-it-till-it-breaks’ model created ‘energy black holes’ that drained resources and profits, placing a heavy burden on the environment. Equipment is typically maintained only after failure, causing severe downtime, but the real cost comes earlier. Consider an unmonitored motor running slightly above specification or an oven with undetected heat loss; these act as a constant energy drain and silently increase the carbon footprint. This reactive approach extends to infrastructure. Vast production floors keep lights and HVAC running around the clock for human workers – often the largest source of ‘non-production’ energy waste. Older systems lack visibility into these invisible inefficiencies, from air compression leaks, which alone can waste 20-30% of the energy output, to electrical cabinet overheating. Manufacturers remain blind to major cost-saving and sustainable transformation opportunities. In this data vacuum, the balance sheet and biosphere suffer. The Intelligent Pivot: From Blind Spots to Precision Power The future of manufacturing relies on intelligent technology to shift away from costly, reactive operations toward high-precision, proactive green practices. This transformation embeds AI and advanced sensing to optimize power use, eliminate waste, and minimize carbon footprints. Central to this shift is innovative equipment optimization. Low-power robotics, motors, and systems are managed by intelligent algorithms that dynamically adjust operations to match demand with minimal power use. AI-enhanced thermal monitoring provides 24/7 oversight, detecting signatures of inefficiency or failure to enable predictive maintenance and targeted green upgrades. Equally transformative is smart logistics and the “dark warehouse”. Recognizing that climate-controlled storage drains utilities, facilities now deploy automated guided vehicles and handling platforms that operate perfectly in darkness. This allows massive storage zones to transition to near-zero energy for lighting and climate control, proving productivity and environmental protection can become a unified goal. Technology in Action: Hikvision’s Green Manufacturing Transformation The commitment to smart, sustainable production is not abstract theory – it is integrated into real-world operations. At Hikvision’s manufacturing bases, the company has implemented these AIoT solutions to strengthen its green manufacturing and ESG performance, turning commitments into verifiable, industry-leading practices. For decades, factory operations were highly inefficient, struggling to fix problems only after they occurred. The old ‘run-it-till-it-breaks’ model created ‘energy black holes’ that drained resources and profits, placing a heavy burden on the environment Such a technology-driven initiative has delivered high-impact results: The Green Factory is where business growth meets environmental responsibility. As AI, automation, and thermal solutions become the backbone of sustainable manufacturing, more innovators are moving early to lead the low-carbon shift. Want the practical playbook? Explore our smart manufacturing white paper: how large-scale AI powered video intelligence transforms efficiency and accelerates smart manufacturing. Index: To see how Hikvision integrates green commitments into operations and broader value chain, please read our ESG Reports. [1] The International Energy Agency. (2023). IEA – Industry Energy System Overview [2] Future Market Insights. (2025). Compressed Air Leak Detection Market Report Read More

Martin VojtekBusiness Director 3D Surveillance at Hexagon’sSafety, Infrastructure & Geospatial division Seven minutes. That’s how long the recent Louvre heist took. In broad daylight, a group of thieves rode up on a construction platform, smashed display cases, stole several historical jewels tied to the Napoleonic dynasty and escaped on scooters before anyone in the control room even realised what was happening. It sounds like a scene straight out of ‘Mission: Impossible.’ Only this time, Tom Cruise wasn’t there. In movies, we often see tight webs of red laser beams guarding treasures, with the hero gracefully sliding between them. Reality, however, is far less cinematic. Most museums still rely on mechanical sensors, simple infrared barriers, cameras and the most fallible component of all – the human eye. But the human eye doesn’t measure space. A camera records an image, but it doesn’t know that a display case has shifted by three centimeters, or that a visitor’s hand just crossed an invisible boundary. That’s where a new kind of perception comes in – LiDAR. From Hollywood fantasy to real-world security Forget the tangled maze of laser beams you’ve seen in films. A modern 128-channel rotating LiDAR fires hundreds of thousands of laser pulses per rotation – and it does this up to 10 times per second. That’s millions of spatial measurements every second, creating an invisible web of light that maps the scene in 3D, without anyone ever noticing. What LiDAR builds is called a point cloud – a live three-dimensional model of the environment. The system constantly compares this ‘snapshot’ with the current scene. If anything changes – a hand moves closer to an artifact, a case is displaced or an object disappears – LiDAR detects it instantly. When technology sees in 3D LiDAR technology (such as LidarVision, developed by Hexagon), brings true 3D situational awareness into museums and galleries. It doesn’t just see that someone is moving; it knows where, how fast and in what trajectory. Each detected object is tracked with its precise dimensions, velocity and spatial position. If a visitor steps too close to a protected exhibit, the system triggers an alarm. Pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) cameras automatically turn to the exact spot and start recording. The operator no longer has to stare at dozens of screens, hoping to catch the right moment. LiDAR data also serves as forensic evidence – allowing investigators to replay the incident as a full 3D reconstruction. They can see exactly how intruders moved, from entry to exit, with centimeter precision. Beyond thieves: Everyday situational awareness LiDAR isn’t just a tool against master criminals. It helps with daily operations, too – recognizing when someone lingers suspiciously near a sensitive exhibit, when an unauthorised object enters the room or even when a visitor collapses. The system can trigger a silent alert, notify security staff or automatically redirect nearby cameras. History that never comes back Art theft is not a cinematic rarity – it’s a recurring tragedy. In 1990, 13 paintings worth more than half a billion dollars vanished from Boston’s Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum. None have ever been recovered. Even Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa was stolen from the Louvre in 1911 – though it was miraculously found two years later. That case, however, remains the exception. Thieves often fail to realise that cultural artifacts are not commodities. When they melt them down for gold or strip them for gems, they don’t just destroy value – they erase history. Spatial understanding is the future of security No security system is flawless. But while cameras merely watch, LiDAR understands space. From a single compact device, it monitors the 3D environment in real time, detects anomalies and reacts immediately. Modern security is no longer about higher fences or better cameras. It’s about spatial understanding – knowing what is happening in the room right now. Read More

Major Paul DevassyCEO of IIRIS Knowledge,Vice Chairman of Asis APAC Board I have been a corporate security professional in various organisations spanning different states & types of organisations. The common approach that I had been applying was that of a salesperson. My entire being was being focused on providing a solution to any potential issue that might pop up. The issues would be anything under the sun – I had to give advice on how the elimination of Osama Bin Laden would affect the organisation, what would the affect be the death of a local politician be on operations in a state, the change of regime in the neighbouring country, when would the rains start, what would be the impact of the floods, what would be the affect of a strike in a state, would counting of votes in a general election affect the security situation, what would be the impact of the cyclone on the city. This, and myriads of other issues are thrown at the security fraternity and I over time become hard wired to respond to these queries. I morphed into a lean mean solution giving machine, and soon this permeated into all aspects of my life. This solution giving model was satisfying for me as I felt that I had completed my task & proved my worth. Did it work for the client? Maybe yes – especially while addressing a crisis. I do really think that it assisted in the short term. What about the long term? So, the role of being a solution provider became ingrained into my DNA. Jocularly I used to refer to myself being a living Aqua Regia for any risk focused query. I am sure all risk professionals would also be facing a similar predicament. About 36 months ago on the suggestion of a friend I embarked on the journey of becoming a life coach. Was it disruptive for me and my way of thinking? – Immensely! For starters the foundation of being a coach is too able to listen to empathetically to understand the clients’ challenges and what the client wants. Efficiently use open ended questions, understand what is it that the client wants which would be the contracting phase of the coaching session. Then move at the pace that the client wants to foster a sustainable growth while never be judgemental. All this was contrary to my practice as a corporate security professional. A mentor of mine had in the passing mentioned that we must sell security for our clients to buy security. That made me a proponent of a 24/7 full court press attack mode. It was a major exercise in self-control to override my instincts which had been forged with repetitive actions of being a solution provider. I had to mindfully stop being a salesman of Corporate Risk vertical. Selling as a Salesperson vs. Selling as a Coach A classical salesperson always walks onto the field like a quintessential soccer striker with only one thought in mind. The focus is always on scoring the goal. In the case of salesperson everything that is said and does is always concentrated in securing the sale. They always talk of features & benefits as if they were goods laid out on a stall. Salespersons’ words push & press, like a person leaning on a door until it opens. The measure of success is by the score on the board. The relationship is a trade – coin for goods, nothing more. The guiding question is simple – “How can I make them buy?” Their eyes stay on the short road, the one that ends at the cash register. They use all tools available in the craft – pitches, coaxes, cajoles, and do always keep bargaining, looks for connections that can be leveraged for the final push. So, when the proverbial dust settles, the salesperson walks away with a customer. In comparison, a coach is cut from another cloth. The archetypical coach is a gardener tending to the garden. They always think of the soil, of sunlight, of slow, steady & sustainable growth. Coach’s focus is not on the product, but on the person who is representing the organisation. The coach asks questions the way a gardener tests the texture of the earth. Always listening as a gardener who is connected to the earth for the faint stir of roots. The approach is open and gently perusing. In this mindset the success is not a number but a change – a lift in skill, a rise in confidence. The relationship is not a trade but a journey. It is built on trust, like a bridge that grows plank by plank. The question is different: “How can I help them grow?” Adopting a coach’s mindset changes the focus to following the seasons, not the day. The coach’s tools may appear to be small but in the end is mighty – listening, questioning, feedback, and understand their concerns and unique context. More importantly listen for the unsaid. Most importantly with this mindset inculcating a non-judgemental thinking approach assists in facilitating self-discovery, strategic thinking, and capability-building. All of this ends up in establishing a stronger and sustainable relationship which is built for the long run. Coaching Mindset vs. Sales Mindset: Who Prevails in Corporate Risk? I personally have been in the salesperson mindset all my life. But I believe as corporate risk professionals, we must evolve from having a salesman mindset to a coaching mindset for sustainable growth. A coaching outlook brings big advantages over the traditional sales approach. It builds real client ownership. Clients find solutions themselves empowered instead of just being told what to do by the salesperson. This creates stronger buy-in & commitment in the long run. A coaching mindset also has a long-term impact. Wherein it goes to builds skills & confidence in client teams. They become self-reliant & less dependent. This can be counter intuitive to being with but has a positive impact on the entire relationship chain. It…