The Election Commission of India(ECI) has stoked up a sharp nationwide debate on its Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of election rolls in Bihar which has only raised questions than answers about the integrity of the electoral machinery and the vulnerability of marginalized voters. The ECI’s decision to proceed with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) under the banner of “purifying” the voter rolls has predictably drawn sharp criticism. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi claimed that a six-month probe into alleged irregularities in the Mahadevapura Assembly segment, within the Bangalore Central Lok Sabha constituency which BJP won, has yielded a mix of contested findings. He claimed that the investigation identified only false additions to the voters’ list, while warning that deletions could also be inaccurate. Rahul’s broader allegation- that the ECI is colluding with the BJP to manufacture “vote theft” through multiple channels-demands a response grounded in transparency rather than combative counters. Gandhi’s repeated demand for machine-readable, digitized voter data is not mere technical quibbling; it is a plea for auditable, high-integrity records that can withstand independent verification. Conversely, his charge that CCTV footage of polling booths could be destroyed to obfuscate malpractices raises questions about data retention policies and the integrity of on-ground monitoring. A robust electoral system should preserve, rather than erode, the archival trail that can adjudicate disputes and restore public confidence. Critics argue that the SIR exercise in Bihar, framed as a cleansing operation, risks morphing into a vehicle for disenfranchisement, with lakhs of voters potentially affected by deletions brushed under the rug of process. The broader toll is not merely numerical; it is the erosion of trust in a body entrusted with safeguarding the franchise. Public confidence in the electoral process has already been strained by past controversies and ongoing allegations of politicization. The Bihar SIR episode exacerbates that unease, prompting many to question whether the Commission is acting as a neutral arbiter or as an instrument of advantage for specific political outcomes. When the perceived objective shifts from fair administration to selective pruning, the legitimacy of the entire exercise comes under fire. If the objective is truly to improve the integrity of rolls, the process must be open to scrutiny: timely publication of clear criteria, accessible data for independent verification, and independent oversight that can audit both additions and deletions. Any impression of retreat into combative posturing only intensifies distrust; a measured, evidence-based response-paired with a willingness to subject methodologies to public review-would serve the electorate far better. The burden now lies on the ECI to demonstrate that its actions are guided by due process rather than perception of advantage. That means inviting independent probes where warranted, offering comprehensive explanations of deletions and additions, and ensuring that the timelines for redress and court remedies are transparent and workable. It also requires a commitment to preserving archival records and CCTV footage in a manner consistent with privacy concerns and security needs, so that disputes can be resolved on verifiable grounds rather than rhetoric. For a democracy that prides itself on universal suffrage, the integrity of the roll is a non-negotiable pillar. If the ECI can reinforce this foundational trust by embracing openness and nonpartisan inquiry, it will help reaffirm the electorate’s faith in the system. If not, the cycle of suspicion will only deepen, leaving the impression that the institution is more prone to controversy than to principled stewardship of the vote.
Monday, September 1, 2025