Editorial

The ongoing confrontation between the INDIA bloc and the Election Commission of India over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls has once again laid bare the deep fault lines in India’s institutional politics. The detention of senior opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, the subsequent FIR, and the announcement of further protests demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar mark a significant escalation. What began as a disagreement over the integrity of voter lists has now assumed the character of a political siege on a constitutional body.

The opposition’s core argument is not without substance. Any large-scale revision of electoral rolls carries the risk of genuine errors—deletion of legitimate voters or inclusion of ineligible ones. In a democracy as vast and diverse as India’s, even a small percentage of mistakes can translate into significant human and political consequences. The opposition’s insistence on greater transparency, independent verification, and the personal accountability of the CEC reflects a legitimate anxiety about institutional capture. When political parties feel that the referee itself has become partisan, street protest becomes an almost inevitable response.

Yet the method and the demand raise serious questions. Calling for the resignation of a Chief Election Commissioner in the middle of a statutory process risks converting every administrative disagreement into a crisis of legitimacy. The Election Commission is not a political actor; it is a constitutional authority designed to function above the daily contest of power. Subjecting it to sustained political pressure, detentions, and FIRs on one side and mass mobilisations on the other weakens the very institution both sides claim to protect. The FIR against opposition leaders for their sit-in may be legally sustainable, but it also fuels the narrative of selective enforcement and political vendetta.

The deeper problem is the progressive erosion of trust. When every institutional action is viewed through the prism of electoral advantage, the possibility of good-faith disagreement disappears. The government and the Commission must recognise that opacity and rigid defensiveness only intensify suspicion. The opposition, for its part, must recognise that continuous institutional confrontation, especially when accompanied by demands for personal resignation, can itself become a form of institutional vandalism.

India’s democracy has survived because its institutions have retained a residual credibility even amid sharp political polarisation. That residual credibility is now under strain. The present confrontation over voter rolls is not merely about one revision exercise or one CEC. It is a test of whether India’s political class can still distinguish between vigorous opposition and the systematic undermining of constitutional bodies. Both sides would do well to step back from maximalist positions before the damage becomes irreversible.

• SAS Kirmani