Elections are the bedrock of representative democracy. They enable citizens to exercise political equality, governments to seek a mandate, and power to be transferred peacefully. But an election does not begin at the polling booth. It begins with electoral rolls and the institutions responsible for protecting citizens’ right to participate. A polling booth can only be democratic if eligible citizens are recognised as electors. The credibility of elections, therefore, depends not only on how votes are counted but also on how voters are identified, included, and protected from arbitrary exclusion. The controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and demands for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation raises a fundamental question: can electoral democracy function effectively when public confidence in the institution responsible for administering it is under sustained strain?
Article 324 of the Constitution vests the Election Commission of India (ECI) with the superintendence, direction and control of electoral roll preparation and the conduct of elections. This authority carries an exceptional responsibility because the Commission administers the process through which political power is acquired and transferred. The Commission’s credibility depends not merely on its constitutional status but also on the safeguards governing appointments, the transparency of its decisions and its willingness to address public concerns. The current appointment framework raises questions about whether these safeguards are adequate. Under the 2023 law, the selection committee comprises the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. The government therefore holds two of the committee’s three votes. The issue is not simply whether this arrangement is legally valid. It is whether an institution responsible for overseeing elections can command public confidence when the political executive has a decisive role in selecting its leadership.
In Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court had directed that, until Parliament enacted a law, appointments should be recommended by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India. Parliament subsequently enacted a different framework. The Commission’s independence must therefore be evident in its structure and conduct, not merely asserted in response to criticism. The scale and consequences of SIR make these concerns urgent. Reports have put the number of names left out of draft electoral rolls across several States and Union Territories at more than 13 crore.
Such figures demand scrutiny because every name represents a person whose participation in the democratic process may be affected. Electoral rolls must be accurate, but accuracy cannot come at the cost of wrongful exclusion. The question is whether every eligible citizen has a fair and accessible opportunity to remain on the roll. When eligibility depends on documentation, migrants, landless labourers, homeless people and women with incomplete records face disproportionate barriers. Missing documents may reflect poverty, migration or bureaucratic neglect, not ineligibility. Verification is necessary, but safeguards must include clear rules, adequate time, transparent deletion reasons and accessible appeals to prevent wrongful exclusion.
The consequences of SIR become more troubling when electoral exclusion intersects with access to welfare and other state services. In Bihar and West Bengal, government statements have raised concerns about the implications of electoral-roll deletions for access to government schemes. Such concerns warrant scrutiny, particularly where electoral data may be used in welfare verification. The constitutional distinction is important: electoral rolls are not citizenship registers, and deletion from a voter list does not automatically terminate Indian citizenship.
When electoral deletion becomes entangled with access to essential entitlements, citizenship can begin to feel conditional. For marginalised communities, the state is often experienced through welfare schemes, public services and official documents. Questions about the Commission’s credibility have also emerged from reports of internal disagreements. An Indian Express investigation reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised objections concerning voter registration, the deletion and restoration of names, changes to Form 6, and the centralisation of voter databases.
Disagreement within an institution is not inherently a failure. The concern is whether consequential decisions are transparent, objections are properly addressed, and the public can understand the safeguards governing electoral participation. The Commission’s subsequent efforts to identify and enrol eligible voters who may have been left out of SIR make these questions more pressing. If additional efforts are required to identify excluded electors, the Commission must explain what went wrong, how affected citizens will be protected and what measures will prevent similar problems. The responsibility cannot simply be shifted onto citizens to navigate complicated procedures. The state has greater administrative capacity and access to information; it must bear a corresponding responsibility to prevent wrongful exclusion and correct its own errors.
The Election Commission’s constitutional authority carries an obligation to demonstrate independence through its appointments, decisions, public explanations and protection of eligible voters. Trust cannot be demanded simply because an institution occupies a constitutional position. It must be earned through consistent conduct and accountability. The controversy over SIR raises a fundamental democratic question: can electoral accuracy be pursued without placing vulnerable citizens’ political rights at risk? Can an institution retain public credibility when its appointment structure and handling of electoral revision remain subjects of sustained concern?
When the institution responsible for conducting elections loses public confidence, the damage extends beyond its reputation. It weakens confidence in the process through which political power derives its legitimacy.
Akhilesh Kumar is a PhD Scholar at Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, and an independent writer