A Test of Trust, The Election Commission’s Battle for Transparency and Credibility
Introduction: The Bedrock of Democracy Under Scrutiny
In the world’s largest democracy, the sanctity of the electoral process is not merely a procedural matter; it is the very covenant between the state and its citizens. For decades, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has been the guardian of this covenant, an institution whose integrity was, for the most part, beyond reproach. Its word was considered gospel, its processes the gold standard for electoral integrity globally. However, recent events have cast a long shadow over this hard-earned reputation, triggering a national conversation about transparency, accountability, and the very foundations of democratic trust.
The focal point of this crisis is the ongoing Special Summary Revision (SSR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. While presented as a routine exercise to cleanse the list of inaccuracies, the process has been mired in controversy, leading to unprecedented judicial intervention by the Supreme Court. This article delves into the historical context of the ECI’s credibility, the innovative practices that built its legacy, the specific issues plaguing the Bihar revision, and the profound implications this holds for the health of Indian democracy. The central question we confront is whether the ECI can return to its “most uncompromising version of transparency” to pass this critical test of trust.
The Unshakeable Foundation: Why Electoral Rolls Matter
An electoral roll is far more than an administrative list; it is the democratic manifest of a nation. It is the practical embodiment of the core principle of “one person, one vote.” In a country of over 960 million eligible voters, the task of creating and maintaining an accurate, inclusive, and credible roll is a Herculean logistical and democratic exercise. Any error, whether of inclusion or exclusion, strikes at the heart of this principle. An inflated roll with duplicate or fictitious voters (“ghost voters”) opens the door to manipulation and bogus voting. Conversely, an erroneous deletion disenfranchises a legitimate citizen, silencing their voice in the democratic process.
The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly underscored this, holding that free and fair elections form an inviolable part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The accuracy of the voter list is the first and most critical step in upholding this structure. The ECI, constitutionally mandated to conduct elections, has historically placed the highest emphasis on this integrity, understanding that public trust is its most valuable currency.
The Golden Era: How the ECI Built Unprecedented Trust
The ECI’s reputation was not built overnight. It was forged through decades of visible impartiality, procedural fairness, and groundbreaking innovations that enhanced both access and credibility. Transparency was its guiding mantra. Processes like making draft rolls publicly available for claims and objections, deploying technology for online searches, and actively involving political parties and civil society in verification drives were designed to keep the process open to scrutiny.
This commitment to openness yielded immense dividends. Surveys by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) through the 1990s and 2000s consistently found trust levels in the ECI to be among the highest for any public institution in India, often exceeding 75–80 per cent. This trust was a testament to its perceived neutrality and effectiveness.
Case Study: The “SAD” Voter Innovation of 2007
A quintessential example of the ECI’s innovative and fair-minded approach was its handling of the “SAD” voter problem during the 2007 Uttar Pradesh assembly elections under the leadership of Chief Election Commissioner N. Gopalaswami. “SAD” stood for Shifted, Absent, or Dead voters.
Instead of pre-emptively deleting these millions of names—a move that could have led to mass disenfranchisement and political controversy—the ECI adopted a brilliantly pragmatic solution. Based on rigorous door-to-door verification, it prepared a separate list of these suspect voters for each polling station. This list was handed to the Presiding Officer on election day.
If a person from the SAD list arrived to vote, they were not turned away. Instead, they were subjected to a thorough check to verify their identity and prevent impersonation. The result was a “thunderous success.” The data showed that in most constituencies, only 2-3% of these SAD voters actually turned up, effectively exposing the scale of inflamation while ensuring not a single genuine voter was denied their right. This exercise demonstrated how field innovation could protect the purity of the poll without disenfranchising anyone, a masterclass in balancing integrity with inclusion.
The National Voters’ Day: Reinforcing a Democratic Culture
From 2011 onwards, the ECI institutionalized its commitment to the voter by marking January 25 as National Voters’ Day. The themes chosen each year tell a story of a relentless focus on the citizen:
-
2011 & 2012: Greater Participation for a Stronger Democracy
-
2014: Ethical Voting
-
2015: Easy Registration, Easy Correction
-
2017: Empowering Young and Future Voters
-
2018: Accessible Elections
-
2019: No Voter to Be Left Behind
-
2020 & 2021: Making Our Voters Empowered, Vigilant, Safe and Informed
-
2024: Every Voter Matters
The consistent institutional message was clear: every single voter counts, and no eligible citizen should be excluded.
The Crisis in Bihar: Transparency Questions and Judicial Intervention
The current Special Summary Revision (SSR) in Bihar is ostensibly part of this proud tradition. The ECI aims to capture new voters, correct errors, and remove ineligible names through a de novo (completely new) process. However, this very decision to go de novo is itself a break from recent past practice. Around 2003–04, after state rolls had been digitized and Electronic Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) distributed, the ECI wisely decided to stop the disruptive practice of full de novo revisions, opting instead for summary revisions that updated the existing digital database. This was the practice followed in the massive 2024 general elections. The sudden return to a de novo method in a large state like Bihar has raised eyebrows, begging the question: was the policy of the last two decades flawed?
The ECI released data showing the removal of approximately 65 lakh (6.5 million) names, broken down into 22 lakh deceased voters, 36 lakh permanently shifted/untraceable individuals, and 7 lakh duplicates. While this granular breakdown is laudable, a critical piece of the puzzle was missing: the number of new voters added after this clean-up. Without this figure, the net effect of the revision remains unknown, fueling opposition allegations of targeted disenfranchisement and failing to address the perennial complaint of bogus voter addition.
This opacity led to the Supreme Court’s landmark interim order on August 14. The Court directed the ECI to publicly disclose the names and reasons for the exclusion of all 65 lakh deleted voters within 48 hours. The directive mandated publication through multiple platforms—district electoral websites, public office notice boards, newspapers, radio, and television. The Court’s objective was unequivocal: to enhance transparency, prevent disenfranchisement, and ensure accountability. It clarified that it was not curtailing the ECI’s authority but was insisting that such power must be exercised transparently. The Court emphasized that a citizen should not need to hire a lawyer or approach the court simply to find out if their name was removed from the list; public access is fundamental to democratic accountability.
The Road Ahead: Reclaiming the Legacy
The Supreme Court’s intervention is a stark reminder that trust cannot be assumed; it must be continually earned. The ECI finds itself at a crossroads. The allegations of executive overreach, perceived inaction in the face of model code violations, and a reduction in operational transparency have collectively eroded public confidence.
For an institution that has built a global reputation, the path forward is clear. It must return to its roots of fierce independence and uncompromising transparency. This means:
-
Going Beyond Compliance: Proactively disclosing all data, including additions, to provide a complete picture.
-
Re-embracing Innovation: Revisiting best practices like the SAD voter model to ensure integrity without disenfranchisement.
-
Reaffirming Neutrality: Taking demonstrably impartial action against violations of the model code, regardless of the political party involved.
The Bihar SSR is more than an administrative exercise; it is a litmus test. If the ECI truly believes that “every voter matters,” it must prove it by showing every voter it has added—not just every name it has removed. The preservation of democratic trust, the very lifeblood of the nation, depends on it. The world is watching to see if the keeper of the world’s largest electoral process can pass this test of trust.
5 Q&A on the ECI and Electoral Roll Controversy
Q1: What is the core function of the electoral roll, and why is it so important?
A1: The electoral roll is the official list of eligible voters in a constituency. It is the fundamental building block of democracy, as it legally determines who gets to exercise the right to vote. Its accuracy is paramount because an flawed roll—whether inflated with fake names or missing legitimate voters—directly undermines the principle of “one person, one vote” and can distort the electoral outcome.
Q2: What was the ECI’s innovative “SAD voters” strategy in the 2007 UP elections?
A2: Faced with a list containing millions of voters who were Shifted, Absent, or Dead (SAD), the ECI avoided mass deletion. Instead, it created a separate list for polling officers. When someone on this list came to vote, they underwent enhanced verification to prevent impersonation. This clever solution exposed the scale of bogus entries (as very few turned up) without risking the disenfranchisement of any genuine voter who might have still been in the area.
Q3: Why has the Special Summary Revision (SSR) in Bihar caused such controversy?
A3: The controversy stems from two main issues. First, the shift to a de novo (completely new) revision process breaks from the established practice of the last two decades of updating existing digital rolls. Second, while the ECI transparently disclosed the 65 lakh names it deleted, it did not initially reveal how many new names were added to the rolls. This created an incomplete picture and led to fears of a net reduction in voter numbers and potential targeted disenfranchisement.
Q4: What was the significance of the Supreme Court’s order regarding the Bihar rolls?
A4: The Supreme Court’s August 14 order was a powerful intervention to enforce transparency. By directing the ECI to publicly disclose the names and reasons for all 65 lakh deletions through multiple media platforms, the Court aimed to ensure that no genuine voter is disenfranchised without a chance to appeal. It reaffirmed that the ECI’s immense powers must be exercised with maximum transparency to maintain public trust.
Q5: What does this episode mean for the future of the Election Commission of India?
A5: This episode represents a critical juncture for the ECI. Its historically sterling reputation for impartiality and effectiveness is under greater scrutiny than ever before. To regain unquestioned trust, the ECI must proactively return to its core principles: uncompromising transparency, visible neutrality in enforcing election laws, and innovative practices that protect the integrity of the vote without excluding eligible citizens. Its actions in the Bihar elections and beyond will define its legacy for years to come.
