New Delhi, India – Trust in India’s electoral machinery has suffered a significant blow following reports that divisions exist within the Election Commission regarding policies that opponents argue have disenfranchised millions. The Indian Express recently published an investigation detailing how Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar frequently bypassed the concerns raised by his two fellow commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, about the integrity of changes being made to the national voter database.
The revelations have intensified a months-long campaign by opposition parties, who accuse the commission of acting in the interests of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). While India’s election process has long been praised globally for its scale and complexity, leading opposition figures are now questioning whether votes are counted accurately and whether voting rights are being arbitrarily denied.
“Today, that faith [in the election process] has shaken. It is very shocking for the nation,” SY Quraishi, who served as head of the Election Commission from 2010 to 2012, told Al Jazeera. “The Election Commission used to be a very reputed institution. Now, it is totally dysfunctional – and that’s an understatement.”
According to Indian law, the three-member commission must reach decisions by majority. However, documents indicate that Sandhu and Joshi formally objected at least 14 times over the past ten months to measures issued by Kumar unilaterally. Sandhu described these actions as “unauthorised and illegal.” The objections covered voter registration mandates, the deletion and restoration of names, appeals against deletions, and data security.
Since June of last year, the commission has been conducting a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists state by state. More than 13 million names have been removed during this exercise. Critics contend that these deletions disproportionately target economically disadvantaged communities, religious minorities, and other vulnerable groups.
The controversy surrounding the SIR process stems from the heavy burden it places on voters to prove their eligibility. Individuals are required to produce old records, such as birth, land, and education certificates. Marginalized populations, including migrants and the poor, often lack these documents, and minor discrepancies like spelling errors in decades-old records can result in removal from the rolls.
In West Bengal, approximately 9 million residents were removed from electoral rolls days before state elections in April and May. Analysis indicated that 34 percent of those deleted were Muslim, despite Muslims comprising only 27 percent of the state’s population. The BJP subsequently won power in the state for the first time.
BJP supporters argue that the revisions aim to purge illegal migrants, the deceased, and fraudulent voters. They have alleged that many Muslims removed in border states are illegal Bangladeshi migrants, although evidence shows Indian nationals have been victimized. The process has affected high-profile figures as well; notices were served to Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar and his wife, along with other prominent politicians and former ambassadors, requiring them to prove their Indian citizenship.
Milan Vaishnav, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, criticized the approach. “The [revision of voters’ list] fundamentally inverts India’s model of electoral democracy,” he said. “Since the adoption of the Constitution, India has assumed the burden of ensuring that the last man or woman is registered to vote… It is now the voter who must prove his or her entitlement to remain on the electoral rolls.”
Furthermore, reports reveal that while the commission claims its system is decentralized, it relies heavily on ECINet, a centralized digital platform that gives New Delhi significant control over edits. In one instance, officials in Goa flagged nearly a hundred mistakenly deleted voters. Despite eight emails sent to New Delhi officials within a week, no response was received, and the voters remained removed.
Public anger has manifested in protests, including demonstrations by the Gen-Z pressure group Cockroach Janta Party, which has called for Kumar’s resignation and an overhaul of the commissioner selection process. Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi has accused the commission of “treason” and vowed to prosecute its leaders if his party returns to power.
In response, the Election Commission stated that the report reflected “differing views and deliberations” rather than official protests. Sambit Patra, a spokesperson for the BJP, described any internal disagreements as a sign of a healthy democracy. Nevertheless, analysts warn that the credibility of India’s democratic institutions faces an unprecedented challenge.
A once-respected institution now called dysfunctional by its own former chief? This crisis of confidence is deeply alarming for everyone.
Is it coincidence that 34% of removed voters in Bengal were Muslim? The numbers don’t lie, and neither does the timing.
The burden should never be on the voter to prove eligibility. This shift fundamentally breaks India’s democratic promise.