When Congress loses an election, it blames the democratic system

Why in the News

A mature democracy must separate electoral disappointment from institutional illegitimacy, argues a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) national spokesperson, replying to Congress attacks on the Election Commission of India (ECI). The writer holds that the Congress’s concern for ECI independence sits uneasily with its own history.

What separates losing an election from an illegitimate one?

1. Two different claims: Disappointment is a normal result of political competition. Illegitimacy is a grave constitutional allegation and must rest on evidence.
2. Accepting defeat: The writer’s party lost the Bankipur by-poll without blaming the ECI, the rolls or electronic voting machines. Sometimes the voter wanted something else.
3. Scrutiny is legitimate: Roll revisions, scheduling and Model Code of Conduct enforcement should stay open to scrutiny.
4. Proper channels: These include representations before the Commission, judicial review and statutory remedies.
5. The takeaway: Treating every defeat as fraud weakens the institutions through which citizens exercise sovereign choice.

Why does the writer say Congress’s history weakens its criticism?

1. Shah Commission findings: The Justice J C Shah Commission on Emergency excesses made severe findings on Navin Chawla’s conduct as a Delhi administrator.
2. Chawla’s appointment: The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance still made him Election Commissioner in 2005 and Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) in 2009.
3. M S Gill: CEC from 1996 to 2001, he later entered Parliament on a Congress ticket and served as a Union Minister.
4. T N Seshan: The CEC who redefined the ECI’s powers later contested a Lok Sabha election for the Congress. The writer concedes none of this proves misconduct in office.
5. Emergency precedent: After the Allahabad High Court set aside Indira Gandhi’s election, the Emergency followed, with opponents jailed and civil liberties curtailed.

What evidence does the writer cite for the ECI’s standing?

1. Judicial backing: In a May 2026 judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the legal basis of Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Justice Surya Kant stressed correcting discrepancies in the rolls.
2. Global role: The ECI is a founding member and former chair of the Association of World Election Bodies.
3. Training capacity: Its India International Institute of Democracy and Election Management has trained election officials from scores of countries.
4. Observer programmes: Foreign delegations join India’s Election Visitors’ programmes, though this is not a certificate of infallibility.

Does the selection law answer the independence concern?

1. Opposition’s formal role: The Leader of the Opposition now has a formal place in selecting Election Commissioners.
2. How it came about: The role followed Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) and Parliament’s Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.
3. Contested design: The writer accepts that the law’s design can be debated and remains under judicial scrutiny.
4. Invitation, not accusation: The Congress should take evidence-backed grievances to the Commission and courts, not turn every disagreement into a referendum on democracy.

Challenges

1. Government majority on the panel: Two of three panel members are from the government side, so the Leader of the Opposition can be outvoted.
2. Post-retirement roles: No law bars former commissioners from joining parties, which feeds suspicion of partisanship.
3. Perception of neutrality: Partisan links of past commissioners hurt trust even without misconduct.
4. Slow remedies: Judicial review often ends after the poll, too late for the affected election.

Way Forward

1. Cooling-off period: Bar former commissioners from government or political roles for two years.
2. Consensus in selection: The panel should select by consensus, or include a member from outside the executive.
3. Evidence-led grievances: Parties should file specific, booth level objections with the ECI.
4. Time bound review: Courts should decide roll related petitions before polls.

Conclusion

Separating defeat from illegitimacy protects elections, but trust in a referee also needs rules that keep it beyond the reach of whoever holds power. Judicial scrutiny of the selection law will decide whether the Opposition’s place in it is real or nominal.

How independent is the Election Commission by design?

1. CEC’s tenure protection: The CEC can be removed only in the manner and on the grounds applying to a Supreme Court judge.
2. Weaker cover for Election Commissioners: Other Election Commissioners can be removed on the CEC’s recommendation. The Tarkunde (1975) and Goswami (1990) Committees suggested they get the CEC’s protection.
3. Financial dependence: Unlike the Comptroller and Auditor General, the ECI’s budget is not “charged” on the Consolidated Fund of India, so it needs Parliament’s vote. The Law Commission’s 255th Report recommended charging it.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”