Weaponizing Institutions

Whether as a compliment or criticism, the BJP has shown considerable ingenuity in countering anti-incumbency and frustrating its opponents. The 2024 Lok Sabha election exposed the limits of its dominance. Its tally fell from 303 seats in 2019 to 240, denying it a majority of its own. The BJP depended on allies, particularly the TDP and JD(U), to form the government. Yet the setback has not diminished its determination to retain power. The controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls raises serious questions about whether electoral administration could influence the political contest. Bihar offers a striking example. When the SIR began on June 24, 2025, the state had 7.89 crore registered electors. The draft roll published on August 1 removed around 65 lakh names. During claims and objections, another 3.66 lakh names were deleted, while 21.53 lakh were added. The final roll, published on September 30, contained approximately 7.42 crore voters, nearly 47 lakh fewer than before the exercise. The NDA subsequently won 202 of Bihar’s 243 Assembly seats. In 174 constituencies, the number of voters deleted during the SIR reportedly exceeded the victory margin. Of the 91 seats that changed hands between 2020 and 2025, the NDA won 75, the Mahagathbandhan 15 and smaller parties one. These figures do not prove that deletions determined the outcome, as caste equations, candidate selection, turnout and campaign strategies also matter. Nevertheless, the scale of the overlap warrants independent scrutiny. West Bengal presents similar concerns. Reports indicate that in 150 of the state’s 294 Assembly constituencies, deletions exceeded victory margins. The BJP won 99 of these seats, compared with 19 in 2021. Although figures vary across analyses, the central question remains. Where deletions exceed victory margins, the Election Commission must demonstrate that eligible voters were not unfairly excluded.The Commission argues that revision is necessary to remove duplicate entries, deceased persons, shifted voters and other ineligible names. Such corrections are legitimate, but they must not disenfranchise genuine electors. Every deletion requires verifiable evidence, adequate notice and an effective opportunity to appeal. Administrative efficiency cannot replace transparency, especially in closely contested elections. The reported removal or flagging of more than 13.37 crore names across 30 states and multiple phases makes safeguards essential. The Commission must publish clear data on deletions, additions, objections and restored names, enabling citizens to assess the fairness of the exercise.The attempt by over 190 opposition MPs to initiate proceedings against the CEC were blocked by the Speaker Lok Sabha and Chairman Rajya Sabha which underlined the need for accountability. The BJP has every right to win through public support and effective political organisation. However, what is worrisome is that the ruling party has used central agencies and institutions as weapon to weaken opponents and consolidate its dominance. Such allegations demand scrutiny, not automatic acceptance. Those who are at the helm of such institutions fail to demonstrate that their actions are guided by law rather than political interests. The misuse of central agencies and institutions exposes an undemocratic mindset. Ironically, those who came to power through democratic elections appear increasingly willing to undermine the very principles that legitimised their authority. Democracy is not merely a means of capturing power; it demands respect for dissent, institutional independence and the rule of law.