Context

• Elections form the cornerstone of any democracy. Their credibility depends not only on the fairness of voting but also on the integrity of the electoral rolls that determine who has the right to vote.
• In recent weeks, two high-profile press conferences have brought India’s electoral process under the scanner.
• Together, these events have triggered a national debate on whether India’s democratic foundations are being eroded by systemic flaws in electoral management and by the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) questionable responses.

Opposition’s Allegations: A Threat to Electoral Credibility

• On August 7, 2025, Rahul Gandhi’s revelations concerning the Mahadevapura Assembly segment in Bangalore highlighted what appear to be blatant manipulations in voter registration.
• Instances of multiple voters listed under the same address, fictitious entries with placeholders such as “xyz” as a father’s name, and even zero house numbers point to gross irregularities.
• Opposition claimed these findings were the result of six months of meticulous scrutiny of official ECI documents.
• If these charges are accurate, the implications are grave. The legitimacy of India’s electoral process, and by extension its democratic system, is at stake.
• Free and fair elections are a constitutional guarantee, forming part of the “basic structure” of the Constitution.

The ECI’s Response: From Neutral Arbiter to Political Actor

• The second press conference, held on August 17, 2025, was expected to provide clarity and reassurance from the Election Commission.
• Instead, the CEC’s ultimatum, demanding either a sworn affidavit from Gandhi or a public apology, deepened public unease.
• Rather than addressing the substance of the allegations, the ECI appeared to position itself as a political adversary.
• This is problematic for two reasons. First, the ECI is a high constitutional body whose independence and neutrality are essential to democracy.
• By entering into an adversarial posture with the opposition, it risks losing credibility as a fair umpire.
• Second, Article 324 of the Constitution vests the ECI with extensive powers to ensure the integrity of elections.
• But these powers must be exercised responsibly, not weaponized against political criticism.
• As the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised, Article 324 empowers but also obligates the Commission to safeguard democracy.
• Issuing ultimatums to political leaders is outside its constitutional remit.

The Legal and Procedural Context

• The Representation of the People Act, 1950, provides multiple safeguards for preparing and revising electoral rolls.
• These include annual revisions, public inspections, and mechanisms to address disputes.
• Yet, Gandhi’s allegations reveal how these procedures may be circumvented or manipulated in practice.
• The challenge lies in reconciling two principles: one, the finality of elections, and the need to rectify systemic errors.
• While the law assumes that electoral rolls acquire finality before elections, large-scale irregularities cannot simply be brushed aside.
• A rigid reliance on technicalities such as demanding affidavits is counterproductive when the integrity of democracy itself is in question.
• The ECI’s responsibility is not merely procedural compliance but substantive fairness.

The Bihar ‘Special Intensive Revision’ Controversy

• The ongoing electoral revision exercise in Bihar further illustrates the fragility of the ECI’s credibility.
• The Commission has undertaken what it calls a ‘Special Intensive Revision’ (SIR), despite the fact that neither the Act nor the Rules recognise such a category.
• By setting July 1 as the qualifying date, contrary to the statutory mandate of January 1, the ECI has acted beyond the law.
• Reports of chaotic enumeration, coupled with the deletion of 65 lakh voters, have sparked political turmoil in the State.
• Intensive revision, by definition, requires house-to-house verification, a task practically impossible to complete within a month.
• Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court intervened, ordering publication of deleted names and reasons, a move widely welcomed as restoring transparency.

The Broader Constitutional Concerns

• The controversy brings to mind Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali’s prescient warning in A.C. Jose vs. Sivan Pillai (1984).
• He cautioned that unchecked powers in the hands of a politically compromised Election Commission could cause ‘political havoc’ and a constitutional crisis.
• The ECI, though constitutionally empowered, is not above the law and its mandate is to act as a neutral arbiter ensuring free and fair elections.
• Any deviation, whether through politicised responses to criticism, legal overreach, or procedural shortcuts, risks destabilizing India’s democratic system.

Conclusion

• The twin press conferences reveal more than a partisan clash; they expose a systemic vulnerability at the heart of Indian democracy.
• Opposition’s disclosures highlight the ease with which electoral rolls may be manipulated, while the ECI’s defensive and overreaching response raises troubling questions about its neutrality and accountability.
• The Bihar SIR further illustrates the perils of procedural improvisation at the cost of legality and fairness.
• Ultimately, the integrity of Indian democracy depends on the Election Commission upholding its constitutional obligations with transparency, neutrality, and fidelity to the law.