India’s Election Commission, long regarded as a credible institution managing the world’s largest democratic elections, is under intense scrutiny following revelations of internal divisions and controversial voter registration practices. An investigation by The Indian Express newspaper revealed that the commission’s chief frequently overruled concerns raised by his two equally ranked colleagues regarding the integrity of changes to the voter database. These disclosures have amplified opposition parties’ long-standing allegations that the election commission has been compromised and manipulated to benefit Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s party.
The central controversy involves a process called the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), through which the commission has struck off more than 13 million names from voter rolls since June of last year. Critics contend that this exercise disproportionately targets economically disadvantaged populations, religious minorities, and other vulnerable groups. The revision process places a significant burden on existing voters to prove their eligibility by producing documents such as birth certificates, land records, or education certificates. Even minor discrepancies, such as spelling variations in decades-old documents, can result in removal from electoral rolls. In West Bengal, approximately 9 million residents were removed from the voter rolls just days before state elections held in April and May, with nearly 34 percent of deleted voters being Muslim citizens in a state where Muslims comprise 27 percent of the population.
Internal documents and interviews revealed that commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally objected at least 14 times over ten months to measures implemented by chief commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, characterizing certain actions as “unauthorised and illegal.” Their objections addressed voter registration mandates, deletions and restorations, appeal procedures, and list security. Evidence suggests the commission relied on a centralized digital platform called ECINet, which gave New Delhi officials significant control over editing decisions despite claims of decentralized authority. In one documented instance, officials in Goa flagged nearly a hundred voters mistakenly removed, but editing access was restricted to New Delhi, and despite eight emails requesting correction within a week, the deadline passed without response.
These developments represent a significant erosion of public confidence in India’s electoral institutions. Former Election Commission chief SY Quraishi stated that faith in the election process has been “shaken” and characterized the current commission as “totally dysfunctional.” The revelations underscore broader concerns about whether elections remain free and fair, and whether voting rights are determined by constitutional criteria or arbitrary decisions by authorities. For India’s population exceeding 1.4 billion, the stakes are particularly high, as voting rights connect to access of government welfare schemes beyond the electoral process itself.
Article Attribution | Read More at Article Source
Article summary produced by Claude AI