There have been historic protests against the ECI (Election Commission of India) and its Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), Gyanesh Kumar. Behind these protests lies eroding trust in the constitutional body tasked with safeguarding India’s democratic electoral process, a cornerstone of its democracy.
Thousands of civil society activists, opposition leaders and students have been detained amid one of India’s most consequential democratic movements in recent history. The protests have pitted the youth-led political pressure group Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and a galvanised opposition against the BJP government.
What began as a damning scandal within the ECI has snowballed into one of the most serious protest movements against the BJP since it came to power in 2014.
How the ECI lost public trust
To understand the public anger against the ECI, we must look back at its history and longstanding reputation as an independent constitutional body that has protected Indian democracy.
The ECI was established in 1950 with the mandate to conduct free and fair elections. Historically, the commission was a one-member body. It was briefly expanded to three members in 1989 and permanently made a three-member body in 1993, following efforts to curb the power of the CEC as then-CEC T N Seshan asserted the ECI’s independence against the ruling party.
The CEC was no longer the sole authority but instead became primus inter pares, or first among equals, with the other two election commissioners having equal voting power. This development reflects a broader political reality in New Delhi: successive central governments, regardless of their political affiliations, have sought to undermine the ECI’s independence.
In March 2023, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the appointment of election commissioners, previously under the sole purview of the prime minister, would be made by a three-member panel comprising the prime minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India.
However, the court clarified that this was an interim arrangement until Parliament enacted a law. Parliament, where the BJP holds a majority, swiftly passed a bill removing the CJI from the panel and replacing him with a Union minister chosen by the government. Opposition parties argued that the move would make the panel biased and ensure partisan appointments. In 2024, the Supreme Court declined to stay the new law, rejecting the opposition’s petition.
The petition noted that the opposition member of the appointment panel had formally dissented, stating that he received a dossier containing 212 names the night before the meeting and a final shortlist of six names just 10 minutes before it. This, he argued, made meaningful vetting virtually impossible. These controversial decisions further eroded public trust in the ECI.
What is SIR and why is it so controversial?
Public mistrust in the ECI deepened following its implementation of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), which has been plagued by widespread errors. An SIR involves an exhaustive door-to-door verification drive to remove duplicate entries and the names of deceased or permanently relocated voters from electoral rolls. Over the past year, this process has resulted in the deletion of more than 12 crore (120 million) names from voter lists.
Opposition parties allege that the BJP has weaponised the SIR to disenfranchise specific demographic groups, including Muslims and other minorities who tend to vote against the party. The use of AI in the latest SIR has also proved highly contentious. The Reporters Collective revealed that the central software module automatically generated tens of thousands of deletion requests without specifying reasons and after the legally mandated deadline. The controversy intensified after the BJP won the West Bengal state election, unseating the Trinamool Congress (TMC). The TMC alleged that the SIR had skewed the electoral mandate, a charge the ECI denied.
More than 58 lakh voters were removed from the electoral rolls, including retired Calcutta High Court judge Justice Sahidullah Munshi, who was serving as chairperson of the Kolkata Auqaf Board. High-profile cases such as his were cited as evidence of the alleged systematic misuse of the SIR by the ruling party.
Following such public embarrassment, the ECI quietly introduced a “Mark VIP” feature in its digital Booth Level Officer (BLO) application during the Delhi SIR. The feature helped prevent the erroneous deletion of public figures’ names, reducing the risk of further public embarrassment for the commission. Critics argue that this reveals glaring hypocrisy: while political and social elites are protected, millions of ordinary citizens are forced to navigate a bureaucratic nightmare to regain their fundamental right to vote after their names are erroneously removed.
The report that fuelled public anger
The event that turned this simmering discontent into a nationwide protest movement was a damning investigative report published by The Indian Express on 23 September. It revealed that the two election commissioners had formally lodged at least 14 complaints about decisions made by CEC Gyanesh Kumar over a 10-month period. This was unprecedented in India’s history.
The commissioners alleged that crucial directives concerning the SIR and the centralisation of election databases had been issued in the commission’s name without their knowledge or consent. One commissioner even described the Election Commission’s actions as “unauthorised and illegal”. The revelations fuelled public anger towards CEC Gyanesh Kumar, whom critics accuse of favouring the ruling BJP, which appointed him to the post.
From allegations to nationwide protests
The report published by The Indian Express on 23 September served as the spark that ignited nationwide protests. Opposition parties said the report showed how the BJP had stolen elections. On 24 September, CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke issued a 48-hour ultimatum outlining three demands, the central one being the resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar. The Indian National Congress (INC) was the first party to take to the streets, launching nationwide protests on 25 September that led to the detention of several party leaders.
Amid growing discontent, the ECI reversed several of its controversial decisions, though this did little to quell public anger. On 28 September, the Indian Youth Congress (IYC) staged a major demonstration in New Delhi, attempting to march towards the ECI headquarters. Police responded with water cannons and detained protesters.
On 2 October, Mahatma Gandhi’s birth anniversary, the CJP launched protests in Mumbai and at Jantar Mantar in Delhi, where more than 500 people were detained. CJP leader Abhijeet Dipke announced that the group would launch Jantar Mantar 2.0 on 10 October if the CEC did not resign.
The name referred to the group’s previous successful protest at Jantar Mantar, which had resulted in the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. During this period, the INDIA alliance, the opposition bloc, continued to protest against the CEC separately while expressing support for the CJP.
The CJP organised a massive protest at Freedom Park in Bengaluru on 8 October. Delhi Police denied the group permission to protest at Jantar Mantar on 10 October. On 9 October, authorities announced the closure of 47 metro stations on 10 October, revising an earlier order to close 57 stations.
They also cancelled mail and express trains to Delhi to limit the number of protesters travelling to the capital, imposed an internet blackout in central Delhi, and instructed hotel and cab aggregators to restrict young passengers. Protest leaders condemned these unprecedented measures as an “unofficial emergency” and reaffirmed their resolve to proceed with the planned demonstrations.
On 10 October, police boarded a Delhi-bound flight immediately after it landed to detain CJP leader Abhijeet Dipke and fellow leaders Saurav Das and Asutosh Ranka before they could disembark. Police also detained four former chief ministers, including Mamata Banerjee and Arvind Kejriwal, along with thousands of protesters, students and political activists demonstrating in Delhi that day.
More than 6,000 people were detained. Delhi remained under heavy restrictions on 11 October, with the number of detentions exceeding 7,500, while Dipke, Das and Ranka were released on bond.
On 12 October, Delhi Police officially withdrew Jantar Mantar’s status as a designated protest site, which it had held since 1993, effectively relegating future demonstrations to more distant parts of the city. On 13 October, CJP leaders Saurav Das and Asutosh Ranka defied police orders, slipped past the security cordon and hoisted the Indian national flag at Jantar Mantar. They were immediately rearrested and sent to Tihar Jail the following day.
On 14 October, CJP leader Abhijeet Dipke announced that the group would formally coordinate its street protests with the INDIA bloc. Further nationwide protests were expected in the following days, signalling that the battle over India’s electoral rolls was far from over.
Saqi Manjur is a sophomore at the Institute of Business Administration (IBA), University of Dhaka. He has a keen interest in following regional politics and geopolitical events.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Business Standard.
Source: https://www.tbsnews.net/thoughts/why-trust-indias-democratic-watchdog-eroding-1577211
