From T.N. Seshan to Gyanesh Kumar: New controversy tests EC's independence

The Election Commission of India has been at the centre of controversies before, be it political parties questioning the safety of EVMs, electoral rolls, or the model code of conduct. Opposition parties have, at different times, accused it of showing bias toward the ruling party. The Commission has managed to weather such criticism without seriously damaging the institution's credibility in the public eye.

But, this time, the controversy over the Special Intensive Revision is different in one important respect. The exercise directly impacts the relationship between the voter and the electoral system. The states that have undergone SIR will bear witness to the fact that the process did cause anxiety among voters, as they had to fill forms and produce documents to establish their eligibility. Those who took the exercise lightly, or had their names deleted, had to bear the brunt of not being able to avail themselves of government subsidies or even get their passports renewed, as many news reports from across the country highlighted.

So, when the reports about differences within the Commission came out, they hit home faster. As The Indian Express highlighted, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally objected to decisions taken by the Commission at least 14 times over 10 months under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The objections related to the nationwide SIR exercise and included questions over changes made to Form 6, the statutory form used for new voter registration, as well as the control of the Commission's central voter database. The Commission, in its statement, rejected the suggestion that there is a split within the institution. It has said there was no internal disagreement and that all decisions, including those relating to SIR, were ultimately taken unanimously. The ruling BJP also argued that differences of opinion are normal within a constitutional body.

The Opposition, already bearing the brunt of losing key elections, was up in arms much faster. It brought arch-rivals such as the Congress and AAP, and the TMC and Left parties, together. They had a common ground and grievance against the government: the constitutional body allegedly siding with the government. Fresh from the Gen Z movements against NEET leaks, which claimed the scalp of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, the Opposition has found a potent issue with which to take on the government. The Cockroach Janta Party, too, has warned of building a nationwide movement.

More importantly, the SIR issue was highlighted by the Opposition, but without much political resonance, as one saw in Bihar and in West Bengal. But now, the matter appears to gain urgency as the Opposition tries to capitalise on it.

This also brings together parties which had been arch-rivals: Congress and AAP; the TMC. They have a common institutional target.

The institution has faced these questions before. T.N. Seshan's tenure as Chief Election Commissioner was marked by his battles with the government and political parties, including his opposition to the decision in 1993 to turn the one-member Commission into a three-member body. In 2019, Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa recorded a dissent over the Commission's decisions on alleged violations of the model code by political leaders. The Commission has also repeatedly had to defend itself against allegations relating to EVMs and claims of political bias.

So, the doubts over the credibility of the ECI are real. The controversy has arisen, and political protests against Gyanesh Kumar are only set to escalate.

The issue takes us back to a concern that B.R. Ambedkar raised when the Constitution was being framed. When he moved the draft Article 324 in the Constituent Assembly in June 1949, Ambedkar argued that elections had to be protected from executive interference.

The concerns raised during the Constituent Assembly debates still remain. The Commission cannot simply say there is no split and that decisions were unanimous. It must examine the objections raised by its own members, answer the concerns of voters, and correct itself where necessary. How it responds now will determine how much trust the public places in the institution.