The Election Commission of India (ECI), once hailed as the impartial sentinel of democracy, finds itself under scrutiny for its sudden push to compress the Special Intensive Revision(SIR) exercise just ahead of the Bihar polls in November. The timing raises the question- why was this not done in July 2024, when there was ample time to allow objections, corrections, and counterclaims? By ordering SIR on the eve of elections, the ECI has invited the charge that its intent is not administrative efficiency but political expediency to benefit the ruling party in Bihar. Electoral rolls form the backbone of democracy, and tinkering with them close to polling raises legitimate doubts. On its part and towards achieving the goal of One Nation, One People and transformation into a presidential form of election, the BJP is determined to ‘capture’ big states like Bihar which play a very critical role in shaping up the political direction in the national arena. By facilitating electoral success, the ECI is essentially using SIR to determine that those who can and who cannot vote are squeezed into such a narrow window, which only raises suspicions. The ECI cannot ignore that its Bihar SIR has made it look less like an institution acting out of necessity and more like one bending to a political timetable. What has also deepened unease is the ECI’s uncharacteristic response at the press conference where the tenor and tone of the language was anything but combative. Challenging Rahul Gandhi to “prove his allegations or apologise” is not the voice of a neutral umpire; it is the voice of a political party countering a rival. The ECI’s credibility rests not only in conducting free and fair polls but also in appearing above the fray. By engaging in rhetoric that mirrors political exchanges, the ECI is doing disservice to its own standing and feeds the perception that it is like a referee joining the fight. Another point that should be clear is that politicians, like citizens, have every right to question the fairness of electoral processes. Allegations of bias are not treason; they are part of democratic accountability. The proper response from the ECI is not to demand apologies but to demonstrate transparency. If the SIR is truly above board, the ECI should have no difficulty publishing clear data, timelines, and explanations that prove it. ECI must understand that facts, not barbs, are the best rebuttal. Institutions that bristle at criticism betray insecurity; while institutions that welcome open verification project strength. By speaking the language of politicians, the ECI is chipping away at the very neutrality that once set it apart as the envy of other democracies. This slide was observed since 2018 where ECI began ceding its independence by default. Despite democracy being desi, India’s electoral system commands respect only so long as the referee is seen to be fair. However, the delayed SIR rollout, the suspicious timing, and the Commission’s combative posture together form a troubling pattern. At stake is not merely an election in Bihar but the credibility of the ECI itself. If trust in the ECI falters, so too does faith in the democratic process. The ECI must remember that it is not in a duel with opposition leaders; it is in a covenant with the Indian people. The ECI’s duty is not to silence critics but to prove them wrong through transparency and accountability. Anything less is a disservice to democracy.
Wednesday, September 10, 2025