Beyond the Ballot: Institutional Integrity in the Shadow of Executive Overreach
Free and fair elections are the bedrock of political legitimacy in any democracy. Recently, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, raised significant concerns about electoral integrity following the 2024 Maharashtra assembly elections.
Among the issues flagged were a sharp and unexplained rise in the number of voters on the electoral rolls between the Lok Sabha and assembly elections, unusually high voter turnout reported after 5 p.m. on polling day, and amendments to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, that now limit access to CCTV footage of the polling process.
Concerns which strike at the core of institutional accountability
These concerns strike at the core of institutional accountability, transparency, and the of strength of democratic discourse. More importantly, the response or lack thereof from the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the ruling party raises troubling questions about the independence of one of India's most critical constitutional bodies, especially when specific issues are raised by constitutional officeholders. This reveals much about its institutional independence.
Instead of engaging with the Opposition's concerns, the ECI summarily dismissed them as “completely absurd” and “unsubstantiated,” arguing that they insult the lakhs of polling staff and party-appointed polling agents who facilitated the election. The Commission also failed to release the updated voter rolls, withheld CCTV footage, and did not conduct an independent inquiry – even after receiving formal petitions and complaints. Its only response was a December 2024 letter posted on its website, offered as a sufficient rebuttal.
Even if historical precedents show similar increases in voter rolls – as in 2014 – the addition of more than 39 lakh voters in Maharashtra in the six months following the general election is unusually high and deserves closer scrutiny. Simply citing past occurrences is not a substitute for transparency.
Equally important is the issue of provisional turnout figures: while the ECI rightly cautions against over-reliance on these figures, a substantial discrepancy such as in the Maharashtra case or in any similar case calls for independent verification, particularly in a context where disenfranchisement of marginalised communities is increasingly reported.
The electoral roll updating process, must become more accountable and subject to verification by political parties. Instead, the ECI’s response appears disturbingly aligned with the ruling party’s narrative.
Also Read: Political Intolerance and Declining Academic Freedom in India
Spokespersons of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) condemned Rahul Gandhi’s remarks as “disgraceful” and accused him of undermining public faith in institutions and orchestrating a “conspiracy” to delegitimise Indian democracy. Predictably, they framed his claims as an insult to Maharashtra’s voters and part of a five-step “fake narrative” campaign.
This response is emblematic of a broader trend: whenever institutional concerns are raised – especially by Opposition leaders – they are dismissed as political theatre of losers or worse, anti-national rhetoric. But these concerns are not about isolated procedural lapses. They point to deeper structural issues: voter list inflation, disenfranchisement, and administrative partisanship.
Procedural propriety cannot be a shield against democratic accountability. It is the ECI’s responsibility to uphold electoral integrity by ensuring access to voter rolls, preserving CCTV footage, and being open to scrutiny.
At the heart of this controversy lies a more pervasive issue: the steady erosion of institutional autonomy under a dominant executive. Over the past decade, in the wake of India’s political turn to the right, the executive has become more dominant.
Thereafter, the balance between the government and regulatory bodies has shifted dramatically. Like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Enforcement Directorate (ED), and even sections of the media, the ECI appears increasingly susceptible to executive influence through appointment processes, budgetary control, or political pressure.
Once hailed globally for managing the world’s largest democratic exercise, the ECI’s institutional integrity is now in question. As Justice Krishna Iyer once described, the ECI is meant to be a “super-authority” in the electoral process. Yet, its application of rules and norms appears increasingly inconsistent. During the 2019 and 2024 Lok Sabha elections, multiple instances suggested bias towards the ruling party. The Commission’s scheduling powers were allegedly used to benefit incumbents.
Repeated violations of the Model Code of Conduct, especially communal rhetoric by prominent BJP leaders, went unpunished. None of the top leaders were penalised. ECI issued a feeble call for restraint from star campaigners. After this, no further action was taken. The ECI gave them a clean chit, and the Chief Election Commissioner later admitted the body had “deliberately decided” not to touch the top two leaders from both parties. This amounts to an abdication of its duty to check hate speech and enforce electoral fairness.
The current dispensation has institutionalised executive dominance in the appointment process
Perhaps the most critical issue concerns the appointment of Election Commissioners. For years, ECs have been appointed by the executive. Under the earlier system also the executive appointed the ECs but an effort was made to appoint independent minded people or at any rate ECs once appointed acted independently. The current dispensation has institutionalised executive dominance in the appointment process.
In 2023, the Supreme Court sought to firewall the ECI from government capture by mandating a selection panel that included the Chief Justice of India (CJI). The Centre responded by legislating that the CJI be replaced by a cabinet minister nominated by the prime minister – thereby reasserting executive control and violating both the letter and spirit of the Supreme Court’s judgment.
This new law all but ensures that future appointments to the Commission will reflect the preferences of the ruling party, not the constitutional imperative of neutrality. It is a clear example of institutional overreach and a profound weakening of democratic guardrails.
To be sure, the ECI has conducted complex elections with remarkable logistical efficiency. But the growing influence of the executive, coupled with majoritarian political pressures, has constrained its ability to function impartially.
Institutions today are under pressure not only by executive control but also by the ideological dominance of a political force that demands conformity over scrutiny. Most institutions have failed to resist this pressure. The result is an environment where neutrality is compromised, dissent is delegitimised, and electoral trust is eroded as a multi-party system has given way to one-party dominance.
Ultimately, the onus lies on the ECI to restore transparency and public confidence. Without institutional independence or executive self-restraint, the credibility of India’s democratic process remains in peril. What is at stake is not merely a state election or the legitimacy of one political leader’s claims - it is public trust in the institutions of India's electoral democracy.
Zoya Hasan is Professor Emerita, Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
