Election Commission: A question of trust

The questions were once raised by the Opposition. Today, they are being raised from within the Election Commission itself. India’s voters deserve an answer

For well over a year, the Opposition has been asking uncomfortable questions about India’s electoral rolls. We were dismissed as bad losers, conspiracy theorists and politicians unwilling to accept the people’s verdict. That argument has suddenly become much harder to make.

Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions and processes within the Election Commission. Their concerns reportedly ranged from decisions taken without their knowledge to changes in voter-registration procedures, deletion and restoration of voters and the increasing centralisation of control over electoral-roll systems.

These are not accusations made at a political rally. They are objections recorded by two members of the three-member Election Commission. The issue is no longer merely what the Opposition alleges about the EC. The issue is what Election Commissioners themselves were saying inside the Election Commission.

Warning Bells Within

Some of what has now emerged should concern every Indian, irrespective of political affiliation. Changes to Form 6, used for registration of new voters, were reportedly described by the two Commissioners as "illegal and unauthorised". They also raised concerns over the centralisation of electoral-roll management and the diminishing authority of officials on the ground.

The case of Goa is particularly revealing. Ninety-seven voters were examined by Electoral Registration Officers and found eligible under the prescribed process. Yet their inclusion was blocked by the centralised system. Officials sent eight emails in seven days seeking intervention. The final roll was published on February 21.

As of September 20, the 97 names remained missing. By itself, 97 may seem an insignificant number in an electorate of hundreds of millions. But constitutional rights are not protected according to statistical convenience. For the citizen wrongly denied a vote, the loss is absolute. Even a single wrongful exclusion should invite correction. Repeated instances, procedural objections and warnings from within the Commission itself demand something more: an explanation.

Questions We Asked

This is precisely why the questions raised by Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi cannot be brushed aside. Beginning with his presentation in August 2025 on alleged irregularities in the Mahadevapura Assembly segment of Bengaluru, he has repeatedly questioned voter-roll integrity and demanded greater transparency. The Election Commission disputed those allegations and challenged their evidentiary basis.

The EC was entitled to dispute them. But an allegation does not become irrelevant merely because the institution facing it denies it. It becomes more significant when subsequent evidence reveals serious concerns being expressed within that very institution.

First came the allegations. Then came the denials. Now come the documents. No responsible political party should claim that every deletion is fraudulent or that every electoral defeat proves manipulation. But neither should a constitutional institution expect questions to disappear merely by describing them as politically motivated.

The Missing Voters

The scale of the issue makes complacency impossible. Draft electoral rolls released during the Special Intensive Revision process saw more than 13 crore names excluded across 30 States and Union Territories. Many exclusions will undoubtedly be legitimate - involving deaths, migration, duplication and other valid reasons. But at this scale, safeguards against wrongful exclusion become more important, not less. However, after recent public and political protest across India, the commission had to reconsider its past decisions.

However, the damage to India’s Democracy has been done.  Every number represents a citizen. Nobody can say how an excluded citizen would have voted. Nor should it matter. Democracy cannot operate on the principle that disenfranchisement becomes serious only when we know which political party the disenfranchised voter supported.

The question is simpler: Was every eligible citizen given a fair opportunity to remain on the electoral roll and exercise the franchise? If there is uncertainty about that answer, the Election Commission must remove it.

Trusting the Referee

The Commission has responded to the latest revelations by saying differing views are part of institutional decision-making and that its eventual decisions over the past year were unanimous. That explanation deserves to be heard. But it also throws up uncomfortable questions.

If concerns serious enough to include words such as "illegal and unauthorised" were recorded, how were they resolved? If Commissioners questioned decisions allegedly taken without their knowledge, what procedures were subsequently followed? If the final decisions were unanimous, what changed between objection and assent?

India’s Constitution entrusted the EC with something more precious than administrative authority - it entrusted it with the faith of the Indian voter.

Governments will come and governments will go. Political parties will win and lose. But if citizens begin doubting whether their names will remain on electoral rolls, whether every legitimate vote will count, and whether the institution conducting an election is indifferent to who wins it, the damage extends well beyond any one election.

An Election Commission does not become independent because it declares itself independent. Its conduct must leave citizens with no reasonable cause to believe otherwise. Trust, once lost, cannot be restored through assertions. It must be earned: through transparency, accountability and answers.

Governments will come and governments will go. Political parties will win and lose. But if citizens begin doubting whether their names will remain on electoral rolls, whether every legitimate vote will count, and whether the institution conducting an election is indifferent to who wins it, the damage extends well beyond any one election

The author is a Member of the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly and Former President of Uttarakhand Pradesh Congress Committee; Views presented are personal.