Fight for democracy

The government’s response to the opposition-led protest at Jantar Mantar on Saturday raises serious questions about its tolerance of dissent and its commitment to democratic freedoms. The reported deployment of over 30,000 security personnel and detention of more than 7,000 protesters represent an extraordinary show of force against a demonstration demanding accountability from the Election Commission of India (ECI). It is a war that the government has declared on citizens.Maintaining public order is a legitimate responsibility of the state, but using overwhelming force against political dissent risks turning law enforcement into an instrument of intimidation. The handling of the Jantar Mantar protest raises a separate constitutional concern. Article 19 protects peaceful assembly, subject to reasonable restrictions. Authorities may impose proportionate security measures, but they must explain why such an overwhelming deployment was necessary and under what legal grounds protesters were detained. Reports of manhandling, including allegations involving women protesters and members of the legal fraternity, warrant impartial investigation. A designated protest venue cannot become meaningless if citizens exercising their democratic rights are treated as security threats. Democracy is not secured merely by holding elections; it depends on the freedom to question those in power and the independence of institutions meant to hold them accountable. Suppressing dissent cannot resolve a legitimate grievance. It only deepens public suspicion and weakens confidence in governance. At the heart of the protest is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the reported exclusion of around 13 crore names from draft lists. This is not merely a confrontation between the ruling party and the opposition. It concerns the fundamental right to vote and the credibility of the institution responsible for protecting it. Electoral rolls must be accurate, but cleansing them of errors cannot become a pretext for excluding eligible citizens. Equally, allegations of deliberate voter suppression must be established through evidence. The ECI must demonstrate that the exercise is transparent, impartial and subject to effective safeguards. The ECI’s argument that the figures cited include categorisations rather than final deletions does not settle the controversy. It makes transparency even more necessary. How many electors have been classified as absent, shifted or duplicated? How many names have ultimately been deleted, and how many citizens have successfully challenged their exclusion? These are basic questions demanding clear answers. An electoral revision that leaves genuine voters struggling through complicated procedures to establish their eligibility defeats the very purpose of democratic participation. The law does not permit arbitrary deletion without providing sufficient time for response. Arbitrary deletion is illegal and unconstitutional as it divides citizens between those who can vote and those who cannot. The responsibility for accuracy cannot rest entirely on citizens who may lack the information or resources to challenge administrative errors. CEC Gyanesh Kumar must therefore address the allegations surrounding changes to Form 6, used for new voter registration, and the handling of electoral-roll data. Claims of procedural manipulation require documentary scrutiny, not political rhetoric. The reported demand for a Special Investigation Team inquiry and restoration of the original form makes an independent examination imperative. The courts must examine credible legal challenges, and the opposition must substantiate its allegations. Accountability must apply to all sides.The right to vote and the right to protest are not privileges granted by the government. They are constitutional guarantees. Any attempt to weaken either strikes at the foundations of Indian democracy.