Who Guards the Guardian of Democracy?

Moajungshi Menon

India proudly calls itself the world's largest democracy. Every election, millions of citizens exercise the most powerful right available to them, which is the right to choose their government. But democracy is not merely about pressing a button on polling day. It is also about who prepares the electoral rolls, who conducts the election, who enforces the rules and who appoints the institution entrusted with protecting the electoral process. That brings us to an uncomfortable but necessary question: Who guards the guardian of Indian democracy?

The Election Commission of India is not an ordinary government department. Article 324 of the Constitution entrusts it with the superintendence, direction and control of elections. Its independence is therefore fundamental to the credibility of every election. The Election Commission is supposed to be the referee. And when the government itself is a contestant in the electoral contest, the independence of the referee becomes a matter of national importance.

FROM THE OLD SYSTEM TO THE NEW
For decades, the Constitution provided that the President would appoint the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners, subject to any law made by Parliament. In the absence of a detailed statutory appointment mechanism, the Union executive effectively played the decisive role in recommending appointments. That arrangement eventually came under constitutional scrutiny.

In its landmark Anoop Baranwal judgment of March 2023, the Supreme Court addressed the absence of a statutory mechanism and prescribed an interim arrangement until Parliament enacted a law. The committee was to comprise the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Chief Justice of India. It was a significant institutional balance: Government. Opposition. Judiciary.

Then Parliament enacted the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. Under the new law, the Selection Committee consists of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The arithmetic is simple: Two members come from the government side and one represents the opposition. The Chief Justice of India is no longer part of the selection committee. That is not an interpretation. That is the structure of the law. And that structure deserves public scrutiny.

WHAT DOES THE GOVERNMENT SAY?
The Union government has defended the 2023 arrangement and argued that the Constitution does not require the Chief Justice of India to be part of the committee. Its position broadly is that judicial participation in appointments is not constitutionally mandatory and that elected representatives have democratic legitimacy. The government has also resisted the idea that the Prime Minister or a cabinet minister should automatically be presumed to act unfairly merely because they participate in the appointment process. This argument cannot simply be dismissed.

A Prime Minister cannot be presumed dishonest merely because he participates in an appointment, nor can an Election Commissioner be presumed biased merely because the person was appointed under the present law. But there is a difference between trusting individuals and designing institutions. A constitutional system cannot depend on the assumption that every government, every Prime Minister and every future office-holder will always act perfectly. The real question is therefore not, “Do we trust the present Prime Minister?” The question is, “What safeguards should exist regardless of who occupies the Prime Minister's office?” This should be the proper constitutional question.

THE REFEREE MUST NOT APPEAR TO BELONG TO THE PLAYERS
Imagine a football match in which one team is given two of the three votes to select the referee. It would not automatically prove that the referee would favour that team. But it would certainly create a legitimate question about the structure. Elections are far more important than a football match.

The result determines who controls the government, public finances, legislation and the machinery of the State. Therefore, the Election Commission needs not only legal authority but also public confidence.

The Supreme Court has recorded challenges to the 2023 appointment law arguing that replacing the Chief Justice with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister affects the independence of the electoral process. The Court has also recorded concerns raised over the procedure followed in the 2024 appointments, including the limited time reportedly available to the Leader of Opposition to examine the shortlisted candidates. These are not questions that should simply be brushed aside as opposition politics; they are constitutional questions.

SIR: WHEN A NAME DISAPPEARS, A VOTE CAN DISAPPEAR
The debate becomes even more serious when we look at electoral rolls. There is nothing wrong with correcting electoral rolls. Dead persons should be removed, duplicate entries should be corrected, people who have permanently shifted should not remain indefinitely registered at their old address and ineligible persons should not be in the electoral roll.

The Election Commission has a responsibility to maintain accurate electoral rolls. But there is a fundamental difference between cleaning an electoral roll and accidentally marginalizing genuine voters. That is why the Bihar Special Intensive Revision or SIR deserves close examination.

Before the exercise began, Bihar had approximately 7.89 crore electors. After the enumeration deadline, nearly 65 lakh electors were not included in the draft electoral roll published on 1 August 2025.

The Election Commission reported that approximately 22 lakhs were recorded as deceased, seven lakhs were enrolled at multiple places and about 36 lakhs were permanently shifted or not found.

The Commission's argument was that Bihar's electoral rolls had not undergone a Special Intensive Revision since 2003 and that, over two decades, migration, deaths and duplicate registrations had affected the accuracy of the rolls. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the Commission's authority to conduct the SIR and found that the exercise had a legitimate purpose.

It would be wrong to describe SIR simply as an illegal exercise. But legality does not end democratic scrutiny. The question remains: how effectively were genuine voters protected from wrongful exclusion?

THE SUPREME COURT ITSELF DEMANDED GREATER SAFEGUARDS
During the SIR litigation, the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to publish the names of approximately 65 lakh excluded electors along with the reasons for exclusion. It also directed that affected voters be given an opportunity to make claims and allowed Aadhaar to be used as an additional identity document for establishing identity, while clarifying that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship. This intervention is important because behind every number is a citizen. An elderly person, a migrant worker, a poor family, a person who has moved for employment, someone who may not understand complicated procedures or someone who may simply have failed to submit a document on time.

The state may see a name on a database but the citizen sees a fundamental right. No genuine voter should lose the right to vote because of an administrative error.

WAS SIR DESIGNED TO HELP THE BJP?
This is perhaps the most politically sensitive question. It can certainly be asked but it must not be answered without evidence. There is a difference between political consequence and political intention.

If large numbers of voters are removed from an electoral roll, there can obviously be electoral consequences. If exclusions are concentrated in particular constituencies or demographic groups, those consequences could become politically significant. But claiming that SIR was deliberately designed to benefit the BJP would require evidence establishing both the pattern and the intention.

Therefore, the strongest democratic demand is simple: show us the data, show the constituency-wise deletions, show the reasons for deletion, show how many claims were filed, show how many were rejected, show how many voters were restored or show the geographical and demographic distribution of the exclusions.

Let independent researchers examine the figures. Let journalists examine them. Let political parties scrutinize them. If the process is completely neutral, transparency will demonstrate it; but if mistakes occurred, transparency will expose them. Democracy should never be afraid of data.

WHY IS THE BJP DEFENDING THE ECI?
There is another uncomfortable question. When the Election Commission faces criticism over electoral rolls, SIR or election-related controversies, why does the ruling BJP so readily come forward to defend the Commission? The BJP has every democratic right to defend an institution it believes is being unfairly attacked. But that does not prevent another question from being asked: Why should a political party become the political shield of the constitutional institution that is supposed to regulate that very political party?

The Election Commission is not a BJP institution or a Congress institution. It is not even a government department. If the ECI believes that its policies are correct, the ECI itself should come forward and defend them with facts, figures, methodology and evidence. It should explain why voters were excluded, how the exclusions were verified, how genuine voters can appeal, how errors will be corrected or how the system guarantees that no genuine voter is left behind.

The ECI should be able to say, “Here is our data. Here is our methodology. Here are our safeguards. Examine them.” That is how a constitutional institution should answer criticism.

DOES BJP'S DEFENCE PROVE INVOLVEMENT? NO. BUT THE QUESTION DESERVES TO BE ASKED
The fact that the BJP defends the Election Commission does not prove that the BJP has participated in manipulating voter lists. Such a serious allegation requires evidence. Democracy allows citizens to ask why the political party itself has to become the principal defender of the Commission. If the ECI's work is transparent, why not let the ECI speak for itself? If SIR is fair, why not let the data speak? If no genuine voter has been deliberately excluded, why not validate it constituency by constituency?

The voter does not have a political party behind him. The ordinary citizen whose name disappears from the electoral roll may not have a lawyer, a television channel or political influence. That is precisely why the Election Commission must be seen as defending the voter, not the government.

THIS IS BIGGER THAN THE BJP
This debate should not be reduced to BJP versus opposition. Today the BJP is in power. Tomorrow another party may occupy the government benches. If India creates a system in which the government of the day has a dominant role in selecting the election referee, that power will eventually belong to whoever forms the next government. The principle must therefore be bigger than any political party.

The question is not “Do you support BJP or the opposition?” The question should be, “Do you want an Election Commission that neither the government nor the opposition can claim as its own?” That is the standard India should demand.

THE BURDEN OF TRUST IS ON THE INSTITUTION
The Election Commission says its objective is to ensure that no eligible voter is left out and no ineligible person is included. That is exactly what a constitutional election authority should seek. But when nearly 65 lakh names disappeared from Bihar's draft electoral roll, the Commission had a responsibility not merely to say that the exercise was legal. It had a responsibility to demonstrate that the process was fair.

An independent institution should not ask citizens simply to say, “Trust us.” It should say, “Here is the evidence. Examine us.” That is not weakness; that is institutional strength.

INDIA NEEDS AN ELECTION COMMISSION ABOVE POLITICAL POWER
India does not need a government-friendly Election Commission nor does it need an opposition-friendly Election Commission. It needs an Election Commission that is institutionally independent of both. The appointment process should therefore command the confidence of all sides.

Electoral-roll revision should be transparent, every deletion should have a verifiable reason, every affected citizen should have a meaningful opportunity to challenge exclusion and the complete data should be available for independent scrutiny.

The question before India is not whether one particular government can be trusted. It is whether our institutions are strong enough that no government ever needs to be trusted blindly. That is the real meaning of constitutional democracy.

THE REFEREE MUST BELONG TO NEITHER SIDE
Governments will come and go. Political parties will rise and fall. Chief Election Commissioners will come and retire. But the Election Commission must remain and it must remain above political pressure. It must remain answerable to the Constitution. And ultimately, it must remain accountable to the Indian voter.

The BJP may be right that the Prime Minister should not automatically be presumed to act in bad faith. The Election Commission may be right that electoral rolls require periodic revision. The opposition may be right to question whether the appointment mechanism provides sufficient institutional independence. Citizens may be right to demand stronger safeguards against wrongful exclusion. These positions can be debated without fear but one principle should unite them all, which is the Election Commission must never become the property of the government of the day. The strongest democracy is not one in which the ruling party always wins nor is it one in which the opposition always wins.

It is one in which every genuine voter can walk into a polling station knowing that his or her name is on the electoral roll, the vote will be protected, the counting will be credible and the institution conducting the election belongs to neither side.

India does not need an election referee chosen to please the players but it needs a referee trusted by the people. And that is why the question must continue to be asked without fear, without favour and without political intimidation: WHO GUARDS THE GUARDIAN OF DEMOCRACY?