Context

Elections are the bedrock of any democratic system. Their legitimacy rests not only on the conduct of polling but also on the credibility of electoral rolls, which determine who has the right to vote. In recent weeks, two high-profile press conferences have cast a spotlight on India’s electoral machinery, sparking a nationwide debate about whether fundamental flaws in electoral management — and the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) responses — are eroding the democratic core of the country. The concerns raised go beyond isolated irregularities and suggest deeper institutional lapses that threaten electoral integrity.

Opposition Allegations and Electoral Trust

·       On August 7, 2025, Rahul Gandhi presented allegations pointing to disturbing voter registration anomalies in the Mahadevapura Assembly segment of Bangalore. These included duplicate entries at single addresses, fabricated names using placeholders like “xyz” for fathers’ names, and entries lacking basic address information, such as house numbers. According to the opposition, these revelations are based on six months of exhaustive analysis of official documents sourced from the ECI.

·       If substantiated, such charges strike at the very foundation of Indian democracy. The principle of free and fair elections, enshrined as part of the basic structure of the Constitution, is imperilled when the electoral roll — the starting point of democratic participation — is itself compromised. The implication is not merely one of procedural lapse but a systemic failure that undermines electoral legitimacy.

The ECI’s Response and Its Democratic Role

·       The public expected the ECI to address these claims with transparency and seriousness. Instead, the Commission’s press conference on August 17, 2025, marked a worrying shift. Rather than responding substantively, the Chief Election Commissioner issued an ultimatum to Rahul Gandhi — either submit a sworn affidavit or issue a public apology. This approach appeared less like an institutional clarification and more like a political counteroffensive.

·       This is problematic on two fronts. First, the ECI is a constitutional body whose neutrality and independence are essential to preserving democratic faith. By adopting a combative stance, it risks compromising its perceived impartiality. Second, Article 324 of the Constitution, which grants the ECI broad powers to conduct and oversee elections, comes with an equal obligation to act in defence of democratic norms. Judicial interpretations have consistently stressed that the ECI’s authority must be exercised responsibly and in the public interest, not used to suppress political criticism or shift focus from genuine institutional concerns. Issuing ultimatums to political figures is well beyond its constitutional mandate.

Legal Framework and Procedural Shortcomings

·       India’s electoral processes are governed by the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which lays out multiple safeguards for preparing and revising electoral rolls. These include provisions for annual revisions, public scrutiny, and formal channels for correction. However, the allegations raised suggest that these mechanisms may be failing in practice.

·       At the heart of the issue lies a conflict between two principles: the need for finality in electoral processes and the imperative to address large-scale errors. While the law presumes that electoral rolls are final before an election, evidence of major irregularities cannot be dismissed on procedural grounds alone. In such situations, the ECI’s role is not confined to checking boxes but extends to ensuring substantive fairness and democratic integrity. Demanding affidavits or dismissing concerns on technical grounds does not fulfil this role — especially when public trust is at stake.

The Bihar SIR and the ECI’s Credibility Gap

·       Further questions about the ECI’s functioning have emerged from its ongoing ‘Special Intensive Revision’ (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. This revision, initiated by the Commission, lacks any formal recognition under the Representation of the People Act or the relevant rules. Most notably, the ECI arbitrarily adopted July 1 as the qualifying date for voters, in clear violation of the legally mandated date of January 1.

·       The fallout has been significant. Reports from Bihar suggest chaotic and inconsistent enumeration, and most alarmingly, the deletion of over 65 lakh voters from the rolls. Given that an “intensive revision” requires door-to-door verification, such an exercise is practically unfeasible within a single month. The Supreme Court’s intervention — directing publication of the deleted names and reasons for their removal — was a crucial corrective step and widely regarded as a victory for transparency.

Constitutional Concerns and Institutional Boundaries

·       The developments echo a warning issued decades ago by Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali in A.C. Jose vs. Sivan Pillai (1984). He cautioned that when a constitutional body like the ECI operates without checks, particularly if politically influenced, it can cause constitutional instability and political disruption. Today, that warning seems increasingly relevant.

·       The ECI, though endowed with constitutional authority, must remain within legal boundaries and uphold its core mandate of neutrality and fairness. Any deviation — whether through political engagement, overreach of legal authority, or procedural innovation outside the law — threatens the legitimacy of both the institution and the electoral process.

Conclusion

·       The two press conferences — one by the opposition and the other by the Election Commission — are not merely episodes of political confrontation. They have together revealed a structural vulnerability within India’s electoral system. The opposition’s evidence suggests the possibility of deliberate manipulation in voter rolls. The ECI’s response, far from reassuring the public, has raised legitimate concerns about its impartiality and accountability. Meanwhile, the unfolding situation in Bihar shows how legal and procedural deviations can exacerbate institutional mistrust.

·       At this juncture, the integrity of Indian democracy hinges on the ECI’s commitment to constitutional discipline, procedural transparency, and institutional neutrality. The Commission must not only act lawfully but be seen to act with impartiality and fairness. Its legitimacy is grounded not in confrontation, but in the faith of the electorate — and that faith can only be preserved through a principled adherence to the Constitution and the law.