By Gopavajhala Diwakar
The controversy surrounding the Election Commission of India (ECI), particularly over the revision of electoral rolls and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), has raised a larger question that goes beyond individual decisions of the poll panel: how independent is the institution that conducts India’s elections, and does the process of appointing its top officials inspire sufficient public confidence?
The question has also put the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) and its political allies in an uncomfortable position. Whenever the credibility of the Election Commission comes under sustained political attack, the controversy inevitably reaches those who supported or participated in the system through which its top officials were appointed.
The issue dates back to March 2023, when the Supreme Court, while examining the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners (ECs), held that their appointment should not be left solely to the Executive.
The Court stressed the importance of maintaining the independence of the Election Commission and prescribed a mechanism that would remain in force until Parliament enacted legislation governing the appointments.
Under the mechanism laid down by the Supreme Court, the CEC and ECs were to be appointed by the President on the recommendation of a three-member committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India.
Parliament subsequently enacted the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, replacing the earlier 1991 law governing the conditions of service of Election Commissioners and the transaction of business by the Election Commission.
The new law significantly altered the composition of the selection committee.
Under the 2023 Act, the CEC and ECs are appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha — or, in the absence of a recognised LoP, the leader of the single largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha.
The most consequential change was the replacement of the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister.
The arithmetic is straightforward.
The Prime Minister and the Cabinet Minister nominated by him constitute two of the three members of the committee, while the Opposition has only one member.
In effect, the government of the day has a majority on the selection committee.
This does not mean that the Prime Minister can simply appoint anyone he chooses as CEC or Election Commissioner. The law provides for a formal selection procedure and the final appointment is made by the President.
But the government has two votes out of three on the committee that recommends the candidates.
Gyanesh Kumar appointment highlighted the issue
The significance of the new arrangement became particularly evident when Gyanesh Kumar was appointed Chief Election Commissioner in February 2025.
The selection committee comprised Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi.
Rahul Gandhi opposed the process and sought deferment of the decision until the Supreme Court considered petitions challenging the new appointment mechanism. His dissent, however, could not prevent the committee from recommending Gyanesh Kumar.
The episode highlighted a fundamental feature of the new system: the Opposition can dissent, but it cannot veto a recommendation supported by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Minister.
That distinction has assumed greater importance amid the continuing political controversy surrounding electoral-roll revisions and the Election Commission’s handling of the SIR exercise.
Opposition parties and civil-society groups have raised questions about the transparency and methodology of electoral-roll revisions and have alleged irregularities. The Election Commission and the government have rejected allegations of political manipulation and maintained that electoral-roll revision is aimed at identifying and removing duplicate, ineligible or otherwise invalid entries.
The competing claims have made the Election Commission’s credibility an increasingly important political and constitutional issue.
NDA allies face an uncomfortable political question
The controversy also puts the NDA’s political allies in a potentially difficult position.
Parties supporting the ruling coalition may find themselves having to defend an Election Commission whose independence is being questioned by opposition parties and sections of civil society.
The irony becomes sharper because concerns about the appointment mechanism are not necessarily restricted to parties belonging to the INDIA bloc.
YSR Congress Party president and former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy has also called for greater transparency in the appointment of the CEC and Election Commissioners and favoured restoring the arrangement prescribed by the Supreme Court in 2023, under which the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and Chief Justice of India were members of the selection committee.
His position adds another dimension to the debate.
It suggests that concerns about the composition of the selection committee cannot automatically be dismissed as an issue raised only by parties directly opposed to the BJP or the NDA.
The real issue is institutional independence
The larger question is not whether Gyanesh Kumar is personally impartial.
Nor is it whether every decision taken by the Election Commission is politically motivated.
The more fundamental issue is whether the institutional architecture of the Election Commission inspires sufficient confidence in its independence.
The Election Commission is not an ordinary government department. It conducts elections that determine who governs India.
Its credibility therefore depends not merely on the personal integrity of individual Election Commissioners, but also on whether political parties, candidates and voters believe that the institution is sufficiently insulated from the government of the day.
The Supreme Court’s March 2023 arrangement deliberately placed the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and Chief Justice of India on the selection committee.
Parliament subsequently replaced the judicial member with a Union Cabinet Minister.
That change has generated a continuing debate over whether the present system provides an adequate institutional safeguard for the independence of the poll panel.
The question, therefore, is not simply who becomes the Chief Election Commissioner.
The bigger question is who has decisive influence over choosing the person who will referee India’s elections?
Why does the NDA sneeze when the CEC gets a cold?
And that brings us back to the title.
Why does the NDA sneeze when the Chief Election Commissioner gets a cold?
Because when the credibility of the Election Commission comes under political attack, the controversy does not remain confined to the poll panel.
It inevitably reaches the political parties that supported, defended or participated in the system through which its top officials were appointed.
A referee in a political contest must not only be impartial.
The process of choosing the referee must also inspire confidence that the referee is independent of the contestants.
That is ultimately the test facing the Election Commission’s appointment system.
ECI should address concerns over SIR
Against this backdrop, it is perhaps time for the three Election Commissioners to jointly address the public and provide a comprehensive explanation of the issues surrounding the SIR exercise.
A joint press conference could help clarify the methodology, safeguards, objections, deletion and inclusion procedures, and the steps being taken to ensure that no eligible voter is unfairly excluded.
It would also be an opportunity for the three members of the Commission to address questions about the functioning of the institution and demonstrate that there are no substantive differences in their approach to the contentious issues before the poll panel.
Transparency, however, should not be limited to statements.
The Commission should provide clear, accessible data and explanations wherever possible, particularly on issues that directly affect citizens’ voting rights.
Ultimately, the Election Commission’s greatest asset is not merely the legal authority granted to it by the Constitution.
It is public trust.
And when that trust comes under strain, the best response is not political confrontation but greater transparency.
The credibility of India’s electoral process depends on voters believing that the referee is fair — and equally importantly, that the process through which the referee was chosen was fair too.
