The facts speak for themselves. The Election Commission of India has reportedly conducted Special Intensive Revision (SIR) nine times, with seven exercises taking place under Congress led governments. Yet, the process is questioned most aggressively when the BJP is in power at the Centre. Should constitutional institutions be judged by their procedures or by which party benefits electorally?
The Modi government’s Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, included the Leader of the Opposition in the selection committee. Although the committee’s composition remains debated, the law introduced a defined statutory framework for appointments.
Article 324 of the Constitution entrusts the Election Commission with the superintendence, direction and control of elections. Electoral rolls must remain accurate. Deaths, migration and changes of residence make periodic revision necessary. However, no eligible citizen should be unfairly excluded, and every deletion must follow due process and applicable legal safeguards.
Consider the apparent inconsistency in political reactions. Why are elections in Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu readily accepted when Congress or its allies and preferred candidates succeed, while elections in West Bengal, Assam and other states face allegations of irregularities when the BJP or its allies prevail? Every election deserves scrutiny, but allegations must be supported by evidence not dictated by political disappointment.
The same standard of accountability must apply to public institutions and political commentators. Where were the loudest self appointed guardians of democracy when allegations surrounding the Karnataka Public Service Commission’s veterinary doctor recruitment process raised questions about transparency and merit? Institutional accountability cannot become selective outrage.
And what about the so called “Cockroach Janata Party” (CJP)? If this label represents a political or activist group, its criticism deserves examination on substance rather than slogans. No organisation should claim moral superiority while overlooking other serious public concerns.
Since 1952, India’s electoral system has enabled millions of citizens, including those in remote villages, to participate in democracy. That legacy must be protected through transparency, impartial scrutiny and lawful procedures.
Democracy cannot survive on double standards. Accurate voter lists, protection of every eligible voter and evidence based criticism must remain non-negotiable regardless of who wins.
The Modi government’s Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, included the Leader of the Opposition in the selection committee. Although the committee’s composition remains debated, the law introduced a defined statutory framework for appointments.
Article 324 of the Constitution entrusts the Election Commission with the superintendence, direction and control of elections. Electoral rolls must remain accurate. Deaths, migration and changes of residence make periodic revision necessary. However, no eligible citizen should be unfairly excluded, and every deletion must follow due process and applicable legal safeguards.
Consider the apparent inconsistency in political reactions. Why are elections in Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu readily accepted when Congress or its allies and preferred candidates succeed, while elections in West Bengal, Assam and other states face allegations of irregularities when the BJP or its allies prevail? Every election deserves scrutiny, but allegations must be supported by evidence not dictated by political disappointment.
The same standard of accountability must apply to public institutions and political commentators. Where were the loudest self appointed guardians of democracy when allegations surrounding the Karnataka Public Service Commission’s veterinary doctor recruitment process raised questions about transparency and merit? Institutional accountability cannot become selective outrage.
And what about the so called “Cockroach Janata Party” (CJP)? If this label represents a political or activist group, its criticism deserves examination on substance rather than slogans. No organisation should claim moral superiority while overlooking other serious public concerns.
Since 1952, India’s electoral system has enabled millions of citizens, including those in remote villages, to participate in democracy. That legacy must be protected through transparency, impartial scrutiny and lawful procedures.
Democracy cannot survive on double standards. Accurate voter lists, protection of every eligible voter and evidence based criticism must remain non-negotiable regardless of who wins.
