THE ELECTION COMMISSION of India is meant to stand above politics, but today it increasingly finds itself in the middle of it. Instead of being seen as the neutral referee of democracy, it is seen arguing with political parties, demanding affidavits, issuing stern rebuttals and defending itself in the courts. That is not a reassuring picture for an institution whose strength rests on credibility, not confrontation. It should not appear to be battered by some and defended by one.
The latest flashpoint is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The exercise was announced suddenly, apparently without consultation, and with procedural changes that shifted the burden of proving citizenship onto voters, who earlier only had to give an undertaking that they were citizens. For decades, voter roll revisions were inclusive by design. They ensured that eligible citizens were enrolled with minimum friction. By altering that equation abruptly and without explanation, the EC invited suspicion from unprepared citizens who were instead focusing on the impending assembly polls.
Political parties and civil society organisations, blindsided by the scale of the exercise, went to court. Ordinary voters grew anxious that their names might disappear. This was avoidable. In the past, the EC functioned through consultation. Political parties, however fractious, were treated as stakeholders, not adversaries. They were taken into confidence when procedures changed. Dialogue was constant, disagreements were resolved on the ground, and explanations were offered either through engagement or through the media before confusion spread. Even when allegations about electronic voting machines or electoral rolls arose, the EC dispatched teams, clarified doubts and addressed grievances. That habit of bridge-building is what kept faith in the institution alive.
Today, the tone and approach appear different. By choosing to hit back at political leaders with combative language, the EC risks sounding both defensive and offensive. Demanding that opposition leaders apologise or provide affidavits for their statements might appear an assertion of confidence. In reality, it makes the EC vulnerable. A constitutional body cannot shield itself with rhetoric. If discrepancies are pointed out, the only dignified response is to investigate, explain with facts and take corrective measures where necessary. That is the only way to remove doubts in the minds of citizens who look upon the EC to provide credible answers. Transparency, not confrontation, is the currency of credibility.
The issue of large-scale deletions in a state like Bihar illustrates the problem. Roll “purification” is essential to maintain accuracy, but when lakhs of names vanish, the fear of disenfranchisement is real. Article 326 of the Constitution gives citizens the right to vote. Once enrolled, citizenship was presumed unless questioned in keeping with the law and established procedures. Yet, for electors enrolled after 2003, changes have added new categories of documentary requirements, making the process burdensome. Why should it be necessary for citizens, once accepted as voters after following due process, to continually prove eligibility for their constitutional right? Accuracy of rolls is vital, but so are fairness and accessibility.
Unfortunately, what could have been an exercise in inclusiveness has turned into a source of mistrust. Political parties and civil society see opacity where there should have been openness. If the EC had laid out benchmarks, invited objections at the draft roll stage, provided enough time for aggrieved electors to seek redressal, involved stakeholders actively and timed the exercise without linking it to an imminent election, suspicion would not have escalated. Instead, a unilateral rollout has given rise to petitions in the Supreme Court, putting the institution itself on trial.
The EC must ask itself: does aggressive rebuttal strengthen or weaken its institutional dignity? It has historically been like a compassionate parent in Indian democracy. When children misbehave, the parent sets boundaries with firmness, generally avoiding angry outbursts. Aggressive postures risk diminishing the aura of impartiality.
Rebuilding credibility requires a return to fundamentals. First, procedural reform: predetermined benchmarks for deletions and additions, transparent draft rolls and active involvement of citizens and political parties. Second, statutory clarity: safeguards against arbitrary deletions or burdensome documentation requirements. Third, cultural renewal: a revival of the EC’s tradition of consultation, patience and openness.
There are precedents to draw upon. When allegations about Model Code of Conduct violations grew in 2018, the cVIGIL app was introduced to empower citizens to report violations in real time. That approach, using people as partners rather than adversaries, is the way forward. The same philosophy must guide voter roll revisions: the EC must lean on citizens and parties for feedback rather than treating them as combatants.
Every democracy has noisy political actors who accuse institutions of bias. The test of resilience is not in silencing critics but in how criticism is handled. Engage when allegations are made. Explain with data. Ignore the sound and fury of politics, but never ignore genuine discrepancies. The EC does not need to fight for credibility. It only needs to earn it, day after day, through openness.
The EC must choose whether it wants to be seen as an impartial referee trusted by all, or risk being perceived as an impatient institution indulging in political gamesmanship. Its choices will shape popular perception and its institutional future, which is inseparably linked to the faith millions of Indians have in the EC as a trustworthy guardian of their vote.
Lavasa is former election commissioner of India.
As told to Kanu Sarda.