42 former judges defend ECI, warn against ‘vote theft’ claims amid SIR controversy
New Delhi, October 8: Forty-two former judges and retired veterans of constitutional office have issued an open letter expressing “grave” concern over what they describe as a sustained campaign to undermine the Election Commission of India (ECI), the judiciary and other constitutional institutions.
The letter, dated October 7, comes amid an escalating political confrontation over the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and Opposition allegations of “vote theft”. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and other Opposition leaders have accused the poll panel of manipulating voter rolls and have demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The ECI has rejected the allegations, while protests against the poll panel have intensified in Delhi and elsewhere.
The former judges said they were writing as former judges and retired constitutional office-holders and “hold no brief for any political party”. They argued that criticism of constitutional institutions is legitimate in a democracy, but warned that repeatedly portraying them as “thieves”, “puppets” or “compromised” without establishing such allegations could damage public confidence.
“Criticism of institutions is a democratic right. Denigration is not,” the letter said.
The signatories specifically questioned allegations of “vote theft”, saying such claims were being made at press conferences rather than placed before courts or the Election Commission with supporting evidence. They also referred to the ECI’s demand that allegations be supported by a sworn declaration. In August 2025, the poll panel had indeed asked Rahul Gandhi to submit a signed declaration backing his allegations concerning voter irregularities in Karnataka or apologise.
The letter also criticised what it described as selective questioning of electronic voting machines, pointing out that allegations concerning EVMs tend to arise after electoral defeats while victories achieved using the same system are not similarly questioned.
However, the claim that there has been no legal scrutiny of the electoral-roll controversy needs qualification. The Supreme Court has examined the legality and procedure of SIR. In its May 27, 2026 judgment concerning Bihar’s SIR, the court held that the exercise was traceable to Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, read with Article 324 of the Constitution. It held that the process, as conducted, was not contrary to the statutory framework and contained safeguards including notice, hearing and appeals.
At the same time, that judgment does not amount to a judicial finding that every allegation concerning the current nationwide electoral-roll exercise is false. The Supreme Court’s ruling dealt with the Bihar SIR and its legal framework. More recently, the court has also sought records from the ECI after clarifying that it had not approved a “modified” Form 6 used for voter registration.
The former judges strongly defended SIR, describing it as a legally established mechanism intended to remove names of deceased or duplicate voters and those who have shifted, while ensuring the inclusion of eligible electors. They cited Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, which empowers the ECI to order a special revision of electoral rolls for recorded reasons. The Supreme Court’s May judgment also recognised the ECI’s authority to undertake such a special revision, subject to statutory and constitutional safeguards.
The letter warned that efforts to delegitimise elections could have consequences beyond the immediate political dispute. “Trust is the currency of democracy,” the signatories said, cautioning that when faith in the ballot is weakened, public unrest and “anarchic” elements could fill the resulting vacuum.
They also criticised activist groups for filing what they described as repeated petitions without sufficient evidence and alleged that judicial decisions are subsequently attacked when they do not favour those who brought the cases.
The intervention comes at a particularly contentious moment. Opposition parties have stepped up protests against CEC Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in voter-list revisions, while the ECI maintains that its decisions are lawful and that disagreements within the Commission are part of institutional deliberation.
The 42 signatories’ intervention therefore amounts to a defence of the institutional framework overseeing elections, rather than a judicial determination on every allegation surrounding the current SIR controversy. Their central argument is that electoral grievances should be tested through evidence, courts and established constitutional mechanisms rather than through claims that, they contend, risk undermining public faith in democratic institutions.