The Election Commission of India: Constitutional Independence, Electoral Integrity and the Crisis of Public Trust

In a democracy, elections do not mean only the counting of votes, they are the moral foundation of governance and the mechanism through which people hold the government accountable. The integrity of this process depends not only on the fair conduct but also on the referee who conducts such exercise. The referee has to be independent, impartial and shall follow the due process

Election Commission of India (ECI) is that referee, who is entrusted with the responsibility of conducting free and fair elections in this democratic arrangement. Uptil recent times, the Election Commission of India (ECI) was seen as an organisation of supreme status, maintaining public trust and safeguarding democratic principles. However, the recent developments have raised serious questions about the credibility and the impartial nature of the constitutional body.  These questions are not only relevant as a legal debate on independence of any constitutional machinery; but it touches the very core of the Indian Democracy.

Constitutional framework: Independence of the Commission and Separation of powers

Article 324 of the Constitution vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the Election Commission of India, because electoral supervision cannot be left entirely to the executive government as the government itself is a participant in the electoral contest. The Indian Constitution establishes a intricate balance through the Separation of Powers. The executive, legislature, and judiciary operate within a defined domain but the constitutional bodies like the ECI act as neutral guarantors of democratic processes. They are detached from executive interference. ECI is an independent constitutional authority entrusted with a function indispensable to representative government.

Appointment of Election Commissioners: The Supreme Court’s intervention and the new law

For over seven decades, Article 324(2) contained a “constitutional silence” it left the mechanism for appointing Commissioners to a law made by Parliament. In the absence of such a law, appointments were made entirely by the Executive, The Prime Minister through his Cabinet. This framework gave ultimate powers to the union executive in appointment of the election commissioners, and this discretion has raised questions on the independent nature of the commission.

The Supreme Court addressed this issue in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, wherein the honourable court, through its constitutional bench on 3rd March 2023, directed that, until Parliament enacted a law on the subject, appointments to the Commission would be made on the recommendation of a committee comprising:

• The Prime Minister.
• The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, or the leader of the largest opposition party where there was no formally recognised Leader of the Opposition.
• The Chief Justice of India.

The idea was to ensure unprejudiced appointments involving participation from different organs of the government, to establish an institutional balance.

Pursuant to this judgement of the Court, parliament enacted Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The law replaced the interim committee prescribed by the Supreme Court with a selection committee comprising:

• The Prime Minister, as chairperson.
• A Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
• The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, or the leader of the largest opposition party in that House, as applicable.

This arrangement under the Act once again takes us to the days prior to Anoop Baranwal judgement and raised the same question about executive intervention. The government can ordinarily determine the outcome even when the opposition representative disagrees.

Recent Developments Surrounding the Election Commission

In 2025–2026, the ECI initiated widespread administrative exercises under the banner of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across multiple states (beginning with Bihar and expanding nationwide). The stated objective was to eliminate duplicate entries and deceased voters.

The SIR process has become one of the principal points of controversy surrounding the Commission’s recent functioning. The controversy was not that revision took place, but the methods used, the safeguards available to affected voters, the transparency of decisions and the extent to which the process remained subject to meaningful institutional scrutiny.

This Controversy gained momentum after an investigative report by The Indian Express on 23 September 2026, revealed deep fissures inside the ECI. Internal records disclosed that two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, had formally raised objections at least 14 times over 10 months regarding unilateral decisions taken by the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) without the concurrence of other commissioners.

This report has created a political stir and the following important developments have taken place since then:

• Responding to public outcry, the ECI issued official press releases claiming that all SIR decisions were taken “unanimously” and that the additional declaration linked to Form 6 had been “upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
• During hearings on petitions challenging the SIR exercise, a three-judge Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, issued a sharp clarification: Let’s be very clear. Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us.
• Following judicial scrutiny:
• The ECI issued notices removing the controversial SIR declaration from the online portal in states where revisions had concluded.
• Simultaneous controversies erupted around Form 7 (used for objecting to and deleting voter names). Reports emerged of arbitrary deletions where living voters were declared “dead” or non-residents without proper verification or notice.
• Under court pressure, directives were issued for time-bound adjudication of voter appeals and speedy disposal of pending election petitions to restore administrative accountability.

The developments described above do not establish that the CEC is guilty of a criminal offence. But it certainly raises some troubling questions regarding the internal governance and the impartial nature of the Chief Election Commissioner. The questions that gain the prime importance in this regard may be:

• Whether the changes were legally authorised
• Whether the Commission acted collectively
• Whether the response to the controversy was adequate
• Whether individual responsibility can be established
• The limits of official protection

Is it a threat to Democracy

The damage caused by an electoral controversy extends beyond the immediate administrative dispute. Even where there is no deliberate attempt to act in non-compliance, a failure to explain decisions transparently can undermine confidence in the institution responsible for elections. If the public trust in the institution weakens, it ultimately defeats the core idea behind a democratic nation. Democracy not only warrants free and fair elections but there should also be public belief that the bodies responsible for the process are acting independently.

The way forward

The faith of the voters has to be restored in the system and the institutions if the democratic notions are to be safeguarded. The following measure can be recommended in this step forward:

• Parliament shouldamend the 2023 Act to create a balanced selection committee comprising the government, opposition and an independent constitutional authority, preventing executive dominance. There should be limit on partisan influence.
• Safeguards against arbitrary removal or adverse treatment of Election Commissioners to protect them from political pressure shall be strengthened.
• Matters requiring consideration by the full Commission should be clearly defined, dissent should be formally recorded, and there shall be no arbitrary concentration of authority in the CEC.
• Audit trails and transparent approval procedures for changes to electoral forms, voter databases and registration software shall be made compulsory. The whole process shall be documented
• Publication of clear reasons for deletions, provide timely notice to affected voters, and establish accessible mechanisms for correction and appeal shall be mandated.
• The Supreme Court shall ensure compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements, the independence of the institution and its functioning free from external influence.
• There shall be a Transparent procedure for investigating complaints against Election Commissioners but at the same time they shall be protected from frivolous or politically motivated allegations.
• The government must respect the ECI’s autonomy by minimal interference in its decisions, and the opposition should demand accountability through evidence, parliamentary scrutiny and lawful remedies.
• Parliament should periodically review electoral laws, Commission procedures and implementation of electoral reforms through transparent, cross-party deliberations.

As had been rightly cautioned by eminent jurist, Shri Fali S. Nariman,

“Constitutional guarantees are only as strong as the independence of the human machinery tasked with enforcing them. An umpire that leans toward the government ceases to be an umpire.”

It is the duty of the government and other institutions who are entrusted with the responsibility of protecting our Constitution, to ensure that the constitutional bodies shall act in accordance to the constitution, shall remain independent and impartial, because then only such institutions can inspire public faith and ultimately establish a true democratic governance.

Sources:

1. Constitution of India, Article 324. https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india/
2. The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, Act No. 49 of 2023, Sections 6–7. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/19721/1/a2023-49.pdf
3. The Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991, Section 10. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1435091/
4. The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, Rules 13 and 26, Form 6. https://upload.indiacode.nic.in/showfile?actid=AC_CEN_3_20_00016_195043_1517807321506&filename=registration+of+electors+rules%2C+1960.pdf&type=rule
5. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 216, Supreme Court of India, judgment dated 2 March 2023. https://webapi.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2015/1458/1458_2015_3_1501_42634_Judgement_02-Mar-2023.pdf
6. The Indian Express, “CJI says Supreme Court did not approve Form 6 changes: What the form is, why it matters,” 5 October 2026. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/supreme-court-form-6-changes-cji-surya-kant-10907797/lite/
7. Ritika Chopra, “14 times in 10 months, two Election Commissioners objected on record to poll panel steps,” The Indian Express, 23 September 2026. https://indianexpress.com/article/express-exclusive/election-commission-sir-14-objections-gyanesh-kumar-sukhbir-singh-sandhu-vivek-joshi-10889737/
8. Ritika Chopra, “‘Differing views’ part of ‘decision-making’, says EC, does not address concerns two ECs red-flagged,” The Indian Express, 24 September 2026. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/decisions-unanimous-election-commission-response-sir-vote-express-investigation-gyanesh-kumar-10890491/
9. Supreme Court Observer, “Challenges to the Appointment of Election Commissioners Act, 2023: Jaya Thakur v Union of India.” https://www.scobserver.in/cases/jaya-thakur-v-union-of-india-challenges-to-the-appointments-of-election-commissioners-act-2023-eci/
10. LiveLaw, “Is ECI Correct In Saying Supreme Court Upheld Its New Form 6 Declaration?” September 2026. https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/is-eci-correct-in-saying-supreme-court-upheld-its-new-declaration-appended-to-form-6-552006
11. Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Election Commission press statement concerning Form 6, the Special Intensive Revision declaration, ECINET review, and extension of claims and objections, September 2026. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2315309&lang=2&reg=48
12. News On AIR, “Supreme Court upholds legality of ECI’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls,” 27 May 2026. https://newsonair.gov.in/supreme-court-upholds-legality-of-ecis-special-intensive-revision-of-electoral-rolls/