On March 26, Meta removed an interview conducted by Manorama News with Kerala’s Leader of the Opposition, V.D. Satheesan, following a request from the Kerala Police. With elections having been declared, the police are required to act in accordance with the guidelines of the Election Commission of India. In that sense, the Chief Electoral Officer became answerable for the sequence of actions triggered by the police’s request.
Chief Electoral Officer Ratan Khelkar clarified that the police had only sought the removal of comments, not the interview itself, and that “Meta had made the mistake” by acting beyond that request. Yet errors—whether intentional or not—by institutions entrusted with ensuring non-partisanship can have far-reaching consequences for public trust. Every action by the police and election machinery must not only be lawful but also visibly neutral. In a charged political climate, even a procedural lapse can create a perception of bias—and perception can be as consequential as intent. When action is sought against comments under an opposition leader’s interview but results in the takedown of the entire video during a tightly contested campaign phase, it inevitably raises questions.
Just days earlier, the chief electoral officer had to explain another mistake: a letter sent by the Kerala CEO’s office to political parties carried the seal of the Bharatiya Janata Party instead of an official Election Commission authentication. The error was explained as “clerical,” but it triggered sharp reactions across the political spectrum and fuelled public debate—often through memes—about whether the institution remains impartial.
In the aftermath of that controversy, Kerala Police reportedly issued notices to individuals for sharing the now-withdrawn document, arguing that its circulation could undermine the integrity of the Election Commission. But lapses by institutions like the Election Commission are, and should be, subject to public scrutiny—because institutions exist for the public and derive their legitimacy from it, not the other way around.
The question of equal enforcement of the law is also fundamental. Any perception of selective censorship or uneven law enforcement is inherently problematic. On March 26, Kerala Police acted against the circulation of an AI-generated video on X that allegedly depicted the Prime Minister and constitutional authorities, including the Election Commission, in a misleading and defamatory manner. Such prompt intervention is necessary—and welcome—when dealing with deepfakes and disinformation. But that standard must be applied uniformly.
A quick scan of the digital ecosystem during elections reveals misleading and defamatory AI-generated content circulating across platforms, sometimes even from handles linked to major political parties. For instance, in the Kerala context, the ECI should take note of AI-generated videos being circulated by major political parties in relation to the “adjustment politics” controversy that has emerged in the state.
For the credibility of democracy’s foremost institutions, the principle must be simple: the law must act evenly. Whether it is political misinformation, institutional criticism, or misogynistic abuse, every digital threat must be treated with the same urgency and seriousness. Anything less risks not just selective enforcement but selective trust.