Election Commission Under Fire: Crisis of Credibility or Political Gambit?

The credibility of the Election Commission of India (ECI) has once again come under severe scrutiny, with senior opposition leaders raising concerns over its impartiality and functioning. In a recent interview, senior advocate and Independent Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal launched a scathing attack, calling the ECI a "dysfunctional body" that has failed to discharge its constitutional responsibilities. The opposition’s allegations are not new, but the intensity of these charges, coupled with the ruling government’s firm backing of the Commission, has turned the issue into a full-fledged political battle. The larger question remains—has the ECI truly failed in its duty, or is this a narrative driven by political compulsions?

Sibal’s remarks reflect a growing discontent among opposition parties, particularly the Congress and the Trinamool Congress (TMC), over alleged voter list irregularities and electoral malpractices. The concerns raised are fundamental to the democratic process, as free and fair elections form the bedrock of representative governance. According to Sibal, there is a “lack of faith” in the Election Commission among a significant portion of the electorate. The underlying argument here is that when an institution responsible for conducting elections loses public trust, democracy itself is at risk.

This line of criticism has been echoed by several opposition leaders who claim that the ECI has not acted on key complaints, including allegations of voter suppression, manipulation of electoral rolls, and selective implementation of rules. Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge recently pointed out that in various constituencies, names of opposition voters have been mysteriously deleted while pro-government constituencies have seen an unusual surge in registered voters. TMC chief Mamata Banerjee has also accused the ECI of being a "puppet" of the ruling dispensation, asserting that its actions disproportionately favor the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The opposition’s frustration is further compounded by the handling of EVM-related concerns, with several leaders insisting that doubts over electronic voting machines should be addressed alongside voter list discrepancies.

However, the Election Commission has vehemently denied these accusations, dismissing them as politically motivated. In an official statement, the Commission asserted that the electoral process is being conducted with the highest levels of transparency and adherence to constitutional principles. It also highlighted the recent initiative to conduct all-party meetings across the country to address polling booth-level concerns, arguing that this engagement itself demonstrates its commitment to ensuring a free and fair election. An ECI official, speaking on condition of anonymity, stated, “Every election sees opposition parties raising questions, but the onus is on them to provide concrete evidence rather than making sweeping allegations.”

The BJP, as expected, has come out strongly in defense of the ECI. Senior BJP leaders have dismissed the opposition’s claims as an attempt to create a preemptive narrative to discredit election results in case of an unfavorable outcome. Union Minister Amit Shah recently remarked that opposition parties are attacking the ECI because they have already sensed defeat in the upcoming elections. “Whenever they lose, they blame the Election Commission, the EVMs, and the voters' list. But when they win, they remain silent on these very issues,” he said in a direct dig at opposition leaders.

The broader debate, however, extends beyond partisan arguments. The credibility of an election body is not just about technical correctness but also about public perception. If a large section of the electorate begins to believe that elections are not being conducted fairly, it weakens democracy regardless of whether the allegations are valid. The real challenge for the ECI is to not only ensure transparency but also build trust among all stakeholders.

A key criticism against the Commission is its reluctance to allow third-party scrutiny of voter lists and its refusal to address concerns over the neutrality of certain election officials. Former Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi recently opined that while the ECI has historically maintained a robust reputation, recent controversies have dented its image. “Transparency and accountability must be at the core of the Commission’s approach. Ignoring legitimate concerns only fuels suspicion,” he noted.

The opposition’s demand for a more impartial and transparent electoral process is not entirely unwarranted, but the timing and manner of these allegations also raise questions. If there are legitimate grievances regarding voter lists, why were they not raised earlier during the electoral roll revision process? If the ECI is indeed biased, why do opposition parties not challenge these concerns through legal mechanisms instead of solely relying on public criticism? The lack of concrete evidence to substantiate claims of large-scale electoral malpractice weakens the opposition’s case, making it appear more like a strategic move to cast doubt on the system ahead of elections.

At the same time, the government’s absolute defense of the ECI without acknowledging any scope for reform is equally problematic. A truly independent Election Commission should not need political backing; its credibility should rest on its actions alone. If voter list discrepancies exist, there should be a transparent mechanism to address them. If the opposition feels marginalized in the electoral process, there should be space for institutional dialogue rather than political mudslinging.

As India heads into another crucial election season, the battle over the ECI’s credibility is far from over. The opposition will continue to raise concerns, the ruling party will continue to dismiss them, and the Election Commission will have to walk a tightrope between defending its integrity and addressing growing distrust. But in this power struggle, the real casualty could be the faith of the common voter. If democracy is to be preserved, ensuring an independent and trustworthy Election Commission should be a shared goal, not a political weapon.