Election Commission faces growing rift with voters, opposition and its own system

When was the last time the head of a constitutional body became an object of public hate? Almost never. Outrage is mostly targeted at governments, ministers, their policies or inefficiencies. Which is why the current anger against CEC stands out as unique and institutionally worrying.

What’s at stake is not the law and-order fallout from protests that GoI is handling, but EC’s ability to carry out its core function in the future: conducting elections. In this climate of distrust, every EC decision will be contested by opposition parties. From publication of updated electoral rolls, EC’s mandated all-party meetings in poll-bound states, to authenticating EVM checks by all parties, and the final publication of election schedule, all require stakeholders’ consent. This process has always been a trust-based dialogue. This has now been replaced with deep-seated suspicion.

Controversies are not new to EC. There have been serious issues of dissent and differences among commissioners, allegations of political partisanship, incidents of highhandedness and errors in judgement over the decades. But none of those have cast a shadow on the basic tenets of EC’s functioning like now.


Seeds of doubt have been sown on 3 critical fronts: EC-voter dynamic; ECpolitical parties’ relationship; and uncertainty within the EC system on the way forward. For starters, the problem isn’t with the decision to conduct SIR. Parties can debate either way. But maintaining the purity and health of the electoral roll is very much within EC’s purview.

But the manner of conduct ought to uphold the principles on which the institution has functioned since its inception. That involves transparency, responsiveness and facilitation of voters. The SIR process turned this principle on its head. It put the burden of proof on the voter. So, the response has ranged from political mobilisation against voter deletions to potential voter apathy in urban areas, given that voting is a voluntary activity unlike essential matters that need more attention than digging out old parental records.

As a result, for the first time, EC has come in conflict with the very voter it has always sought to facilitate and celebrate. ‘EC-voter bond’, regardless of all controversies, has provided the fulcrum to all reforms EC has undertaken — from Model Code of Conduct to introducing EVMs and digitisation of processes.

But BLOs today, engaged in difficult discussions with voters trying to prevent their names from being struck off the rolls, is at odds with the good old picture of EC officials physically assisting voters in polling booths, ensuring voters are not harassed by competing agents of political parties, or arranging ‘at-home’ voting for those above 85. Then there’s transparency. A 3-step process — draft roll, claims and objections period, and publishing of final roll — is in place. But this needs iteration on how many have been deleted so far, and their breakup in terms of duplicate addresses or illegal immigrants. No outcome publication of the exercise is available.

This is a break from the past. Each time EC has faced a challenge, it has come out with detailed responses. When questions were raised on EVMs being compromised, EC held an open hackathon, inviting anyone to have a go. On SIR, however, it has stonewalled any query. It has also given no reason on why it has not carried out the annual SSR to include 18-yr-olds for the past 2 yrs.

The next big structural shift is in EC’s method of engagement with opposition parties from a more open-ended, flexible style to a ‘top-down’ structured format. According to CEC’s new procedure, a party can approach the commission only through pre-listed ‘authorised persons’. These persons will also have to place a formal request, elaborating the purpose of meeting. If approved, the meeting is granted.

That has ended the days of party delegations going and venting their grievance, even if for effect. Hence the brewing anger directed at the commission, no matter how misplaced it may be. The impact of this will be felt in conversations with EC officials across levels as they seek to take all stakeholders on board before upcoming elections in Punjab, Manipur, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. Finally, there’s upheaval down the line within EC because of a core shift in institutional ethos. No CEC, until now, has tinkered with basic principles of proactive transparency, voterfirst approach, and flexible engagement with all political parties. In fact, each CEC has sought to refine and improve these processes, regardless of dissent, differences or controversies.

So, the playing field and rules of play never changed through the EC system as fundamentally as it has recently. There are now 3 widening chasms confronting the EC leadership — with voters, opposition parties, and its own time-tested system. As these chasms grow, space opens up for opposition parties to resurrect settled issues like ‘vote chori’. As a counter, GoI and courts will develop a greater say, if not overrule/ influence EC decision-making.

That said, neither GoI nor courts can discharge EC’s principal function of conducting elections. And it’s to that end —even if CEC tides over the current politically-surcharged environment — that navigating past these chasms is going to be arduous. It may require CEC to repeatedly lean on GoI or courts to validate his decisions to all three.