Winston Churchill characterised democratic elections as "a little guy entering into a small booth, holding a small pencil, and drawing a small cross on a small piece of paper." The aggregate of all these little crosses determines the country's destiny for the following five years. Immediately after elections, the little guy is forgotten, disregarded, and ignored until the next round of voting. In India, electoral politics is inextricably linked to the vote bank and forthcoming elections. The flagrant disrespect for ethics and the lack of an accountability mechanism have catalysed an apparent macabre dance of India's democratic essential of election holding. Once the poll bugle sounds, special packages are sent to states, Supreme Court rulings are stayed, lofty promises are made, and uninhibited language is exchanged without regard for political decorum. Electoral reform in India has centred on initiating a move away from vote bank politics toward a politics of performance, development, and growth. During the 2014 general elections, the pan-India implementation of the NOTA option in EVMs according to the Supreme Court's ruling in People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India was considered the first step toward India establishing a right to recall. Regardless of this, the Indian public has never had the option of recalling an elected official for misconduct or underperformance, until the official resigns or his mandate expires. Thus, it is maintained that the power to recall is an appropriate mechanism for ensuring ongoing responsibility of representatives to the people, as opposed to periodic accountability via elections. With this backdrop, this article will try to analyse the notion of recall, its historical context, the right to recall laws in other countries, the benefits and drawbacks, the influence on governance, and the constraints and difficulties associated with implementing such a right in India.