Delhi: Today, several issues are dominating the media, social media, and political discourse simultaneously. These include claims being circulated regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), pressure being exerted on Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and now attempts to drag the Supreme Court into the controversy as well. These are not necessarily isolated developments. They appear to be part of a broader pattern of institutional pressure.
The Election Commission has responded to these allegations. However, if such pressure and misleading claims succeed, the impact may not remain confined to electoral rolls. It could extend to the judiciary, the legitimacy of elections, and even law and order.
*Selective Outrage by the Opposition: Attacks on Bihar and Bengal, Silence on Kerala and Tamil Nadu*
The clearest contradiction appears here. The Opposition has repeatedly questioned the election results in Bihar and West Bengal by citing SIR. There have also been demands and arguments questioning the legitimacy of these elections and, in some cases, calls for their cancellation.
However, SIR-related electoral-roll revision processes were also undertaken in Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Electoral rolls were revised there as well. Why, then, is the Opposition silent about the election results in those states?
If SIR was wrong in Bihar and West Bengal, how was the same process acceptable in Kerala and Tamil Nadu? If the elections in Bihar and West Bengal should be cancelled, would the Opposition also demand the cancellation of elections in Kerala and Tamil Nadu?
These questions raise an important issue. When the same process is criticised where it appears politically disadvantageous and ignored where it appears favourable, the debate begins to look less like a fight over the integrity of the process and more like a matter of political convenience.
*The Campaign in the Media and the Election Commission’s Responses*
In the media and political discourse, it has repeatedly been claimed that SIR is removing the names of large numbers of voters, that the technical system is bypassing statutory safeguards, and that there is a lack of transparency in the Commission’s procedures.
The Election Commission has clarified its position on these issues. The process is conducted in multiple stages. Before a name is removed, notice and an opportunity for hearing are provided. Decisions are taken by the competent statutory authorities.
Presenting measures intended to facilitate the process as failures amounts to reversing the facts.
But the real issue is not limited to the Commission’s responses. The larger concern is that such claims continuously target the credibility of the Election Commission and create pressure on the institution.
*Attempts to Bring the Supreme Court into the Centre of the Controversy*
The pressure has now reached the Supreme Court as well. Comments made by the Court on petitions challenging the law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner, questions surrounding the role of the CEC, and various petitions related to SIR are being brought together to create a larger public campaign.
Some organisations have also raised questions about the impartiality of judges and possible conflicts of interest.
The greatest danger is that allegations, petitions, media reports, and observations made during court hearings may begin to be presented as if they were final judicial findings.
Legally, these are separate things. A petition or a question raised by an organisation is not a judgment of the Court. Until the Court itself passes an order, such claims should be treated as allegations or submissions rather than established judicial findings.
*The Risk of Using Judicial Proceedings as a Tool of Pressure*
If judicial proceedings are used to exert political or institutional pressure on CEC Gyanesh Kumar, any observation made by the Court could potentially be presented as support for a campaign against him.
Media trials, social-media campaigns, and repeated petitions can contribute to such an environment.
The media has every right to perform its role, but judicial decisions must ultimately be based on law, facts, and the Constitution—not on public pressure built around an issue.
*What Could Happen If the Pressure Succeeds*
If such pressure succeeds, political parties may seek a review of decisions taken during the tenure of the Chief Election Commissioner, particularly decisions relating to SIR and electoral rolls.
However, the resignation of a CEC does not automatically invalidate all decisions taken during his tenure. Nor can an election be cancelled merely because of a political demand. Such action requires the procedure prescribed by law, substantive grounds, and, where applicable, judicial intervention.
Nevertheless, attempts to question the Bihar and West Bengal elections are already visible. If these efforts intensify, the consequences could extend beyond the elections themselves and potentially affect law and order.
Some claims have also attempted to draw parallels with models such as Bangladesh. Repeated attacks on institutions can weaken the democratic process.
*The Questions Voters Need to Understand*
– Was the SIR conducted within the constitutional and legal framework?
– Was any voter’s name wrongly removed, and has such wrongful deletion been established?
– Are there legally valid grounds for cancelling any election?
– Are observations made by the Court being taken beyond their actual meaning and used as a tool of political pressure?
– Most importantly, are different standards being applied to the same process in different states, resulting in a double standard?
*Voters Need to Remain Alert*
If misleading claims and narratives succeed, the damage will not be limited to one institution. The credibility of the Election Commission could suffer, unnecessary pressure on the judiciary could increase, questions could be raised about the electoral process, and law and order could also be affected.
Criticism is essential in a democracy. However, turning institutions into arenas for political campaigns and subjecting them to selective attacks can weaken democratic institutions.
This debate is not limited to SIR or the CEC. It is a test of whether institutions will be allowed to perform their constitutional and statutory functions or whether they will continually be pushed into a cycle of pressure, propaganda, and double standards.
Citizens need to understand the difference between facts and process, and between allegations and established findings. Otherwise, the consequences of institutional weakening could ultimately be borne by the entire democratic framework.