ECI and Court make it harder, not easier to trust in independent institutions

Why in the News

The Supreme Court and the Election Commission of India (ECI) have together handled the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in a way that disenfranchised citizens and inflicted administrative cruelty on them, argues a signed column. Because both bodies exist to guard the vote, their conduct now deepens scepticism about independent institutions.

What went wrong with the SIR, according to the writer?

1. What the SIR is: The SIR is a door to door recheck of every voter entry, like a census of voters. The writer accepts it may be justified in principle.
2. Poor design and execution: It was “so badly conceived and executed” that citizens are reeling. Neither body answered critics on its fairness.
3. Burden shifted to voters: An opaque process, including its software protocols, made citizens prove their own eligibility. The writer calls this a flaw of substance, not mere procedure.
4. Mass appeals: The ECI filed appeals en masse against 16 lakh voters in West Bengal who had already been found eligible for inclusion.
5. The takeaway: When the referee challenges voters it already cleared, the citizen bears the cost of protecting the vote.

Why was the Court the only check, and how did it fall short?

1. Shield of impeachment: The ECI controls the integrity of voting lists, and its Commissioners can be removed only by impeachment. The Supreme Court was therefore the only practical check.
2. Safeguards not demanded: The Court could have demanded strong safeguards without curbing the ECI’s powers. It instead legitimised the exercise.
3. Remarks from the Bench: Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked that excluded voters could simply vote in the next election, which the writer calls ad hominem, meaning personal rather than reasoned.
4. No urgent hearing: The Chief Justice of India (CJI) declined to expedite a petition on pending West Bengal appeals before the Rejinagar and Nandigram by-elections.

Why does the writer see a culture of impunity, not one bad exercise?

1. “Constitution of Impunity”: The writer’s term for arbitrary power working inside constitutional offices without abolishing them. Both bodies made up SIR procedures at will.
2. Independence as a shield: Opposition anger targets constitutional authorities, so the government gets off lightly.
3. Rot beyond politics: The decline spans a whole elite, including public servants, not politics alone.
4. Nihilism about institutions: The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the writer says, thrives on scepticism about constitutional functionaries, and both bodies reinforced it.
5. Invisible victims: Excluded voters stay unmobilised and out of public view, so their numbers have not turned into political pressure.

Can better appointment rules restore trust?

1. Appointment question revived: The Court has belatedly questioned how Election Commissioners are chosen, since the executive dominates selection.
2. Procedure and virtue: The Court’s own conduct shows appointment rules do not decide behaviour in office: “procedure is no substitute for virtue”.
3. Partial admission: The ECI’s press notes partly admit procedural impropriety and promise help to voters facing queries.
4. Signals of accountability: The Chief Election Commissioner’s resignation, or the Court repairing the SIR, would signal accountability.

Challenges

1. Accountability gap: Impeachment level protection leaves no routine check on the ECI’s administrative choices.
2. Opaque technology: Voter-flagging software is not public, so excluded voters cannot contest its logic.
3. Delay as denial: An appeal decided after a poll means that vote is lost for good.
4. Executive led selection: Government control of selection erodes confidence even in fair appointees.

Way Forward

1. Published protocols: The ECI should publish the software rules used to flag voters.
2. Time bound appeals: Courts should decide exclusion appeals before the next poll in that seat.
3. Burden on the state: The ECI should show grounds for each deletion.
4. Balanced selection panel: Parliament should ensure no single branch holds a majority on the panel.

Conclusion

Independent institutions earn legitimacy by how they treat the weakest voter, not by formal insulation. Whether the Court now hears exclusion claims before votes are cast will show if that trust can be rebuilt.

What is the Election Commission of India?

1. Constitutional basis: Article 324 vests the “superintendence, direction, and control” of elections to Parliament, State Legislatures, President and Vice-President in the ECI.
2. Electoral rolls: The ECI prepares and periodically revises electoral rolls.
3. Plenary powers: Mohinder Singh Gill (1978) confirmed the ECI’s plenary powers under Article 324 to act where the law is silent.
4. Limit on those powers: Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar (2000) affirmed the ECI’s power to ensure error free rolls, provided it follows natural justice.

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?”