Editorial

The Supreme Court’s suo motu cognisance of alleged “electoral roll irregularities” is more than a routine judicial intervention—it is an indictment of a systemic failure that threatens the integrity of Indian democracy. When the Court must step in on its own to question the Election Commission of India (ECI) regarding mass deletions of voters ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, it signals that something is fundamentally broken in the machinery that safeguards the right to vote.

The allegations are not trivial administrative oversights. Reports from multiple states suggest that lakhs of voters discovered their names missing from the rolls without notice or verification. The fact that these deletions disproportionately affected vulnerable groups—urban poor, migrant workers, minorities, students—raises uncomfortable questions about whether incompetence alone is to blame. In an electoral system where even a narrow margin can determine a constituency’s fate, unexplained deletions amount to tampering with democratic choice.

The Supreme Court’s intervention exposes a troubling paradox: the body constitutionally empowered to ensure free and fair elections is itself under scrutiny for actions that could undermine electoral fairness. Over the years, civil society and political actors have repeatedly flagged inconsistencies, bulk deletions, and opaque verification drives. Yet, the ECI has often responded with defensiveness rather than transparency.

The Court’s questions—about outsourcing verification, using automated tools without oversight, failing to issue deletion notices, and permitting wide variations in state-wise deletion numbers—show that the judiciary sees this not as a collection of isolated lapses but as a potential structural failure. If true, it represents a breach of Article 326’s promise of universal adult suffrage and erodes public trust in the electoral process.

What is at stake here is not merely procedural correctness but democratic legitimacy. An election is only as credible as its voter list. When citizens cannot be certain that their names will remain on the rolls from one election to the next, the very foundation of the republic becomes shaky. The Supreme Court’s move should therefore be seen as a necessary correction—but also a warning.

The ECI must respond with candour, not bureaucratic evasions. Transparency, independent audits, strict accountability, and public disclosure of all deletions are essential if the Commission is to restore its credibility. The Court has done what it must. The real test now is whether the Election Commission will rise to the challenge—or whether India will continue sliding into a democracy where the right to vote can silently disappear with a keystroke.

The violent protests erupting across Assam following the release of the fresh delimitation draft are not merely a law-and-order issue. They are a symptom of a profound democratic crisis, where a constitutional process—meant to ensure equitable representation—is being weaponised to engineer political hegemony and exacerbate ethnic fissures.

The draft, proposed by the Election Commission but bearing the unmistakable imprint of the ruling regime's political calculus, is accused of a brazen agenda: the systematic dilution of minority political voice. By allegedly manipulating constituency boundaries—merging minority-majority districts with larger neighbouring areas, redrawing maps to split cohesive communities, and freezing the number of assembly seats—the exercise threatens to reduce vast sections of Assam’s populace to permanent electoral irrelevance. This is not administrative adjustment; it is political surgery designed to amputate opposition strongholds.

The government defends the move as essential for preserving the "cultural identity" of Assam and aligning with the National Register of Citizens (NRC) process. This narrative is dangerously disingenuous. By framing the delimitation as a bulwark against "illegal immigration," it conflates genuine demographic concerns with a cynical strategy to disenfranchise legitimate Indian citizens of a particular community. The result is the formalisation of a two-tiered citizenship: one with a full political voice, and another whose vote is structurally rendered inconsequential.

The clashes on the streets are a direct consequence of this perceived betrayal. When communities feel the state is not a neutral arbiter but an actor actively scripting their marginalisation, dialogue breaks down, and anger fills the vacuum. The opposition’s allegations of a deliberate marginalisation project cannot be dismissed as mere rhetoric; they resonate because the draft’s outcomes align so perfectly with the ruling party's majoritarian politics.

Assam’s fragile social harmony is now collateral damage in a cold electoral game. To prevent further escalation, the process demands immediate, transparent review and genuine consultation—not as a concession, but as a democratic right. A delimitation that serves a party instead of the people doesn't strengthen democracy; it scripts its silent funeral in the very land where the spirit of protest once forged a nation. The government must choose: will it be a steward of Assam’s diverse future, or the architect of its fractured polity?

• SAS Kirmani