India’s election commission at a crossroads

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has become the focus of intense scrutiny in recent days. This has been manifested in a flurry of events and activities witnessed over the past several months.

The issues span multiple fronts, ranging from the legislation governing the appointment of the poll panel’s head-the Chief Election Commissioner and the two Election Commissioners-to the Commission’s functioning on constitutional matters, as well as general public reactions to its operational mechanisms.

An analysis of these issues shows how the nation is witnessing some of democracy’s most critical aspects play out within one of the Constitution’s most sensitive organs.

For decades under Article 324 of the Constitution, the Union Government (the Executive) held the exclusive power to appoint the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, because Parliament had not passed a specific law. In March 2023, a landmark five-judge Supreme Court bench ruled that appointments must temporarily be made on the advice of a panel consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to ensure fairness.

To replace this temporary judicial arrangement, Parliament quickly enacted the 2023 Appointment Act (The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023), which removed the CJI and replaced them with a Union Cabinet Minister chosen by the Prime Minister.

The Act was challenged in the Supreme Court, and a two-judge bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and S. C. Sharma heard the petitions. The two judges, on September 23, 2026, delivered a split opinion and differed on whether the case should be referred to a larger bench.

Justice Datta noted that it is not enough for the Election Commission to be independent; it must also appear to be independent to the public. He termed the inclusion of the Cabinet Minister an “ornamental” role, observing that a minister chosen by the Prime Minister is bound by cabinet collective responsibility and cannot act as a true counterweight. This gives the ruling government a permanent 2-to-1 majority on the panel, making the Leader of the Opposition’s presence largely symbolic.

Normally, a split verdict between two judges goes to a three-judge bench first. However, because of the massive constitutional importance of how election watchdogs are picked, both judges agreed to bypass a three-judge bench.

They sent the case files directly to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant to consider setting up a Constitution Bench (usually 5 judges or more) to resolve the matter definitively and avoid unnecessary delays.

Beyond appointment laws, the Election Commission faced intense public, political, and legal scrutiny over its massive Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across multiple states.

The ECI defended the drive as a necessary step to remove ineligible entries, fake voters, and ensure clean elections.

However, opposition parties and civil society groups strongly opposed it. They argued that the process caused mass deletions of genuine voters and created unnecessary fear of disenfranchisement.

The Supreme Court previously upheld the ECI’s statutory power to carry out the SIR exercise under Article 324 and the Representation of the People Act, ruling that it supports free and fair elections.

Despite upholding the power, the apex court recently pulled up the poll panel over how notices were being handled.

In September 2026, the Supreme Court noted that notices sent to millions of voters-such as over 33 lakh voters in Delhi flagged for “logical discrepancies”-appeared to be mechanically issued and machine-generated without proper application of mind.

The Apex Court suggested that the ECI add administrative safeguards and offer modern, flexible options like email or WhatsApp so ordinary citizens are not subjected to undue harassment during verification. While appointment laws and voter roll revisions were already making headlines, things escalated quickly with reports of deep internal conflict inside the Election Commission.

News reports allegedly exposed that the two other Election Commissioners-Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi-had formally recorded written objections against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar at least 14 times over 10 months.

They flagged that major executive choices, software modifications, and policy changes were being pushed unilaterally in the name of the full Commission without their consensus or knowledge.

In response, the ECI defended itself by stating that differing views and internal notes are a normal part of a multi-member body’s work during the draft stage, and that all final steps had proper legal backing.

The internal rift and massive voter deletions caused immediate political shockwaves, bringing opposition parties and citizens out onto the streets.

Prominent opposition leaders openly demanded the immediate resignation and removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, calling the mass voter roll changes a threat to democracy.

Political parties and youth groups organized widespread nationwide protests across multiple state capitals, demanding accountability, an independent audit, and a halt to the controversial revision process.

As internal dissents and public outrage mounted, fresh legal battles quickly reached the Supreme Court doors. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking to declare all unilateral executive guidelines and software changes implemented without full commission consensus as illegal.

Taking the legal challenge a step further, a Supreme Court advocate sought the statutory consent of the Attorney General of India to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the Chief Election Commissioner.

This application argued that bypassing fellow commissioners to issue unilateral instructions under the banner of the “Full Commission” amounts to willful disobedience of landmark apex court rulings (T.N. Seshan v. Union of India, 1995).

The petition specifically urged the court to set up an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) or a Judicial Inquiry Commission for an end-to-end technical audit of poll databases.

These overlapping controversies-ranging from appointment laws and voter roll revisions to internal administrative friction and fresh court petitions-have created a serious crisis of confidence.

Citizens, political groups, and legal experts are deeply worried. To save the democratic setup, there is an urgent need to stop these mounting controversies over the working and functioning of the ECI.

Public trust and confidence in this vital constitutional body must remain intact at all costs. After all, the ECI is the independent authority responsible for conducting free and fair polls that bring the government of the day to power in the Centre and the states.

The first and most important remedy lies in fixing the appointment process for the election watchdogs. This process must look completely fair, transparent, and unbiased to the common public.

For this to happen, judicial action from the Supreme Court must not be delayed or dragged out. The legal questions regarding the 2023 Appointment Act need to be resolved in a fast and expedient manner. Time lost in resolving these core structural issues will only cause the institution to crumble further from within. Once public faith in an electoral body is completely lost, the damage becomes extremely difficult to cure.

Protecting the independence, transparency, and collective integrity of the Election Commission is essential to keeping India’s democracy strong, healthy, and credible for future generations.

The author is a senior journalist covering legal affairs; Views presented are personal.