Answer

Introduction

The Election Commission of India, established under Article 324 of the Constitution, is entrusted with the superintendence, direction, and control of elections. However, its credibility faces challenges with allegations of arbitrary voter roll deletions affecting lakhs of electors, undermining the Supreme Court’s stance in PUCL vs Union of India (2003) that free and fair elections form part of the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a).

Body

Key Allegations Against the ECI

• Opaque Voter Roll Deletions: Lack of transparency in removing 65 lakh voters in Bihar without proper disclosure undermined electoral integrity.
  Eg: Supreme Court recently ordered publication of deleted voters’ names with reasons in searchable mode.
• Non-sharing of Voter Data Post-Elections: Refusal to share machine-readable voter lists after elections limited independent scrutiny.
  Eg: Delhi High Court in 2025 directed ECI to act within 3 months on requests for voter rolls in Maharashtra & Haryana.
• Politicisation Allegations: Perceived bias towards ruling parties led to loss of confidence among opposition parties.
  Eg: Opposition accused ECI of shielding the ruling party during Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
• Arbitrary Exclusion of Identification Documents: ECI excluded Aadhaar and other widely used IDs without legal justification, affecting inclusivity.
  Eg: Supreme Court directed acceptance of Aadhaar for aggrieved voters in Bihar roll revision.
• Lack of Accountability Mechanisms: Absence of timely grievance redressal allowed irregularities to persist unchallenged.
  Eg: ECI delayed responses to multiple written representations from political parties.
• Deflection of Responsibility: Placing blame on political parties for not flagging issues earlier while withholding crucial data reflects poor administrative conduct.
  Eg: CEC’s press briefing cited booth-level agent responsibilities instead of institutional lapses.

Necessary Reforms to Restore Integrity

• Legally Binding Timelines for Roll Publication: Mandate proactive, searchable disclosure of voter roll changes with reasons for inclusion/exclusion.
  Eg: SC directive (2025) on Bihar deletions sets a precedent.
• Strengthening Independence in Appointments: Ensure a transparent selection process for CEC and ECs through a collegium system.
  Eg: SC in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) recommended a selection panel with PM, LoP & CJI.
• Enhanced Voter Data Transparency: Post-election sharing of machine-readable voter lists to enable scrutiny and prevent fraud.
  Eg: Second Administrative Reforms Commission recommended technology-driven transparency.
• Independent Oversight and Audit Mechanisms: Introduce external audits of electoral rolls and periodic Supreme Court-monitored reviews.
  Eg: Similar to Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) audits for financial accountability.
• Grievance Redressal Reforms: Create time-bound redressal systems at state and district levels with statutory penalties for non-compliance.
  Eg: Modeled on Right to Services Acts in states like Madhya Pradesh.
• Digital Integration with Privacy Safeguards: Allow Aadhaar-based verification while ensuring privacy through anonymised authentication.
  Eg: Supreme Court (2018) upheld Aadhaar for subsidies with privacy protections.
• Parliamentary Oversight of ECI Decisions: Annual accountability report of ECI tabled before Parliament to ensure bipartisan monitoring.
  Eg: Recommended by Law Commission’s 255th Report on Electoral Reforms.

Conclusion

Restoring the Election Commission of India’s credibility demands a shift towards greater transparency, institutional independence, and stricter checks on political interference. As recommended by the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, strengthening the ECI’s statutory backing and granting it enhanced financial and operational independence will help transform it into a robust, impartial constitutional authority capable of safeguarding the sanctity of India’s electoral process.

DOWNLOAD PDF