Implementing Law Commission’s Recommendations Only Way to Reinstate ECI’s Credibility

The bravado shown by the Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar, countering the allegations of "Vote Chori" (Vote Theft) levelled by the Opposition, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, has boomeranged to bite the institution.

The CEC, in a much-awaited press conference recently, neither answered the serious allegations of ‘Vote Chori’ raised by Gandhi while presenting the data set of Mahadevapura, one of the seven Assembly constituencies of the Bangalore Central Lok Sabha seat, nor did he give a clear reply to several key questions raised by journalists on the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter list in Bihar as well as the previous cases of alleged vote manipulation.

Instead, Kumar's major effort was to assail the Opposition and prove that the Election Commission (ECI) is a “super clean” constitutional body that was above criticism. To discredit the Opposition, his responses ranged from providing little information, explaining lengthy processes instead of giving straight answers, and even veiled threats.

Kumar also tried to intimidate Gandhi in filmy style without naming him. “He will have to either give the information on oath within seven days or apologise. There is no third option,” he threatened. The CEC did not answer the question of why he was not dealing with Anurag Thakur, a Minister in the Narendra Modi regime, with an even hand, as he too had made accusations of vote manipulation in six Lok Sabha constituencies without any specific data or evidence.

The CEC failed to give a convincing rebuttal to Rahul Gandhi’s data-backed claims of over 100,000 "fake" voters in a single Assembly constituency in Karnataka. Kumar dismissed specific numbers, merely, as a "manipulation" of data without providing a transparent and detailed counter-breakdown. He tried to duck the question by giving broader statements about the sanctity of the electoral process and that Booth Level Officers (BLOs) from all parties were involved in the process.

When questioned specifically why the ECI announced a mammoth exercise like SIR in flood-hit Bihar in such tearing hurry, the CEC defended the decision by just citing the technical specifications given in the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1960. His response did not address the specific concern about the ultra-short timeline of the current exercise compared with the previous SIR done in 2003-04 in Bihar, when there were no impending elections, and the exclusion of key ID documents, ration card, EPIC ID, and Aadhaar. The CEC's general statement to fulfill a legal mandate also did not provide a specific explanation for the hurried decision and compressed timeline.

While the CEC boasted about completing the mammoth exercise in record time, hundreds of ground reports by independent and social media journalists and some newspapers showed that, given the ground difficulties in Bihar, time constraints, and unavailability of documents, the BLOs were forced to do shoddy work. There were several ground reports and videos showing BLOs filling the forms themselves, signed on behalf of the electors, or submitting many forms without photographs and the required IDs.

To a specific question on providing machine-readable voter lists, as it was key to analysing the colossal data to point out anomalies like duplicate entries or missing names, Kumar categorically refused doing so, citing a 2019 Supreme Court judgment over concerns over voter privacy, and the possibility of corrupting the ECI's database. He made a distinction between a "machine-readable" and a "searchable" voter list, explaining that the latter, which is available online, can be searched using an individual's EPIC number.

This logic seems ill-founded. Although technically correct, Kumar's answer failed to address the Opposition's contention that a searchable list does not allow for a comprehensive, systemic audit of the entire database to identify patterns of deletions or additions. Moreover, if a machine-readable list can be provided on a pen drive that doesn't have an interface with the ECI's internal software, how could it put the ECI's internal data at risk?

Overall, Kumar's first press conference as CEC dealt a severe blow to the credibility of ECI, which is already being questioned due to successive Election Commissioners choosing to serve their political masters rather than the Constitution.

The latest Lokniti-CSDS survey of the five states clearly shows this pattern of trust deficit. According to the survey, in Uttar Pradesh, the proportion of people who expressed “high trust” in the ECI dropped from 56% in 2019 to just 31% in 2025.

The CEC may have sworn to the constitutional integrity of the Commission, treating every political party on equal footing, but has only led to a feeling of exasperation and anger among common people.

The only way to reinstate the neutrality of the ECI is to implement the recommendations of the Supreme Court in Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India (2023) and the 255th Report on Electoral Reforms (2015) by the Law Commission of India.

The primary recommendation of both institutions is to appoint election commissioners through a three-member committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India.

Additionally, both bodies have advocated for strengthening the ECI's operational independence. The key recommendations include: granting the same security of tenure to all Election Commissioners as the CEC, making the ECI’s funding a charge on the Consolidated Fund of India for financial autonomy, and providing legal backing to the Model Code of Conduct. Until these recommendations are implemented in full, there is very little hope for Indian democracy.

The writer is a senior independent journalist based in Delhi. The views are personal.