Election Chor

Impartiality, fairness, justice and democracy are inseparable from the credibility of elections. In India, that credibility depends substantially on the Election Commission of India (ECI) being seen not merely as independent, but as demonstrably impartial. In recent years, however, the Commission’s decisions and conduct have attracted growing political scrutiny. Opposition parties and civil-society observers have repeatedly alleged that the institution has been more accommodating toward the ruling establishment than toward its critics. These allegations may be contested, but their persistence is itself a warning that public trust is weakening. Several recent tenures have become associated with controversy. A.K. Joti faced criticism over the timing of the Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh election announcements and the handling of the office-of-profit case involving 20 Aam Aadmi Party legislators. During Sunil Arora’s tenure, the 2019 Lok Sabha election saw public disagreement within the Commission over complaints against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP president Amit Shah. Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa reportedly recorded a dissent before later resigning. Sushil Chandra’s handling of the 2021 Assembly elections during the Covid-19 pandemic also drew sharp criticism, including from the Madras High Court.Rajiv Kumar’s tenure was similarly clouded by disputes over voter-turnout data, the handling of Model Code of Conduct complaints and questions concerning electoral rolls during the 2024 Lok Sabha election. The current Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar, faces an even more direct political challenge. In 2026, Opposition MPs submitted a removal motion containing nine allegations, including claims of partisan enforcement, electoral-roll irregularities linked to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), administrative lapses and misuse of authority. The Rajya Sabha Chairman rejected an earlier notice, stating that it did not establish the prima facie case of misbehaviour required for removal. The allegations, therefore, remain allegations-not established findings.Yet the latest development is significant for a different reason: disagreement within the Commission itself has entered the public domain. Reports indicate that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised objections on 14 occasions over ten months on issues relating to SIR, the deletion of names and associated technological and administrative processes. Opposition parties have demanded that SIR be scrapped and have accused the CEC of running the institution like a “one-man autocracy.” The BJP has offered the opposite interpretation, arguing that recorded differences among commissioners prove that the Commission functions democratically. Both claims deserve scrutiny. Internal dissent can demonstrate institutional debate, but it can also expose serious weaknesses if objections are ignored without explanation. Likewise, political criticism should not be dismissed merely because it comes from parties that may benefit electorally. The ECI must answer with records, reasons and transparent procedures-not rhetoric. The Commission’s authority rests on public confidence. It should publish clear explanations of major decisions, disclose the basis for electoral-roll revisions, release voter-turnout data promptly and consistently, and ensure that all parties are treated by the same standard under the Model Code. Parliament, too, must strengthen safeguards for the appointment and removal of election commissioners so that independence is protected in practice, not only promised in law. India’s democracy cannot afford an Election Commission whose neutrality is endlessly debated and never convincingly demonstrated. The institution must not merely conduct elections; it must visibly earn the trust of every voter. The previous system of selection of the CEC and ECs should be retained in order to restore trust in the system.