A biased referee

As the nation awaits the results of the recently concluded assembly elections in Kerala, West Bengal, and Assam, the larger question of electoral reform resurfaces. For decades, debates have revolved around eliminating bogus voters, curbing money and muscle power, and checking sectarian politics. Concerns about tampering with electronic voting machines (EVMs) during transit or custody have also persisted. Opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, have repeatedly raised doubts about the reliability of EVMs, demanding either full transparency or their abolition. These challenges, though serious, are not insurmountable. What is required is political will to strengthen the laws governing elections. Yet, these familiar issues pale in comparison to a new and more dangerous threat: the credibility of the Election Commission of India(ECI) itself. Once regarded as the neutral referee of India’s democratic contest, the ECI today faces accusations of partisanship, procedural lapses, and executive overreach. Since 2014, its role has shifted from impartial arbiter to contested actor, undermining the very foundation of free and fair elections. Central to this controversy is Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, appointed in 2025, who has become the lightning rod for criticism. In Karnataka, opposition parties alleged over 100,000 fraudulent entries in the electoral rolls, including duplicates and bulk registrations. When the ECI denied verification of scanned lists, the Supreme Court had to intervene, directing the Commission to provide searchable data. Petitioners across the country have demanded comprehensive verification of votes, including 100 percent cross-checking of VVPAT paper slips with EVMs, underscoring the urgency of transparency. The impeachment petitions against the CEC, signed by 190 MPs, reflect this deep mistrust. Opposition leaders argue that impeachment is both necessary and meaningful, while legal experts caution that it is constitutionally possible but practically fraught, potentially weakening the independence of the Commission itself. Instead of referring the petition to a parliamentary panel for examination, the presiding officers of both Houses dismissed it outright, further fueling suspicions of institutional bias. The opposition have against submitted another petition to the chairperson of the Rajya Sabha to impeach CEC Gyanesh Kumar. It is also expected that this attempt will not run the procedural course. The charges against the Commission are serious. They include failure to act on complaints against Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s April 18 televised address, widely seen as a violation of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC). The Commission’s official social media post, “Straight-talk to Trinamool Congress,” openly criticized the TMC during the West Bengal campaign, a move unbecoming of a neutral authority. The so-called “Kerala seal incident,” where an election document allegedly bore the BJP’s state unit seal, raised further questions of bias. Complaints of mass voter deletions in West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh were ignored, while bureaucratic transfers in Tamil Nadu and West Bengal were alleged to favor the ruling party. Unless there is a serious institutional effort to restore transparency, neutrality, and accountability, India’s democracy faces a dangerous transformation. Elections risk becoming contests where the ruling party dominates the field, leaving opposition parties and independents to fight against systemic bias. This would reduce the electoral process to a hollow ritual, stripping it of vibrancy and legitimacy. The danger lies not only in perception but in the structural weakening of safeguards. If the referee of the democratic game is seen to have taken sides, the principle of equal franchise collapses. The result is a one-party system masquerading as democracy, offering citizens the illusion of choice while denying its substance.