'EC at centre of assault': 42 ex-judges defend India's poll process in open letter amid protest against Gyanesh Kumar

What prompted 42 former judges and retired constitutional officials to issue an open letter defending India’s Election Commission?

Forty-two former judges and retired constitutional-office veterans issued the letter because they believed India’s constitutional institutions were facing a sustained political campaign. They placed the Election Commission at the centre of what they called the assault. Their stated concern was the possible damage to public trust in democracy.

The signatories challenged claims of “vote theft” that they said lacked supporting evidence. They also objected to constitutional authorities being called “thieves”, “puppets” and “compromised”. The letter distinguished democratic criticism from denigration and said election officials had faced public warnings of reprisals.

The immediate context included protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and controversy over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The former judges defended the revision as lawful and necessary. They urged political parties, media organisations and citizens to verify claims, use evidence, and pursue disputes through the Election Commission and courts.

What is the Election Commission of India, and what role does the Chief Election Commissioner play in it?

The Election Commission of India is India’s constitutional election authority. In general, its role is to supervise elections, maintain electoral rolls, and help ensure that voting follows established rules. The article focuses especially on its responsibility to keep voter lists accurate and to administer the electoral process.

The Chief Election Commissioner is the Commission’s senior officeholder. The article identifies Gyanesh Kumar as the CEC and describes protests demanding his resignation. It also reports that his Z+ security was upgraded amid protests and unrest, although it does not describe every administrative power attached to the office.

The institution matters because elections depend on public confidence in impartial procedures. The signatories argued that criticism is legitimate, but publicly portraying constitutional authorities as corrupt without proof can weaken trust. They urged the Commission to remain transparent, answer legitimate concerns, and stay above political disputes while parties use evidence and legal processes.

How many former judges and constitutional-office veterans signed the letter, and what institutions did they say were under attack?

The letter was signed by 42 former judges and retired veterans of constitutional office. This group presented itself as speaking independently, saying it had no political brief. Its intervention was designed to defend institutional credibility during a period of protests and allegations concerning the Election Commission.

The signatories said India’s constitutional bodies were under sustained attack driven by political interests. They placed the Election Commission at the centre of that assault. They also specifically named the judiciary and referred more broadly to other constitutional institutions. Their concern was not that institutions should escape scrutiny, but that attacks without evidence could undermine democratic confidence.

The letter therefore linked institutional criticism to the wider health of the electoral system. It rejected unsupported “vote theft” allegations and insulting descriptions of constitutional authorities. The signatories argued that political parties should challenge decisions through evidence, the Election Commission and the courts, rather than delegitimising institutions publicly.

What is a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, and why did the signatories say it is necessary?

A Special Intensive Revision is a detailed exercise to review and update electoral rolls. The signatories described it as part of the Election Commission’s constitutional mandate. Its purpose, they said, is to keep voter lists accurate rather than to change the political outcome of an election.

They identified several concrete tasks. The exercise can remove names of deceased voters, duplicate entries, and people who have moved away. It can also add eligible citizens who should appear on the rolls. The signatories linked this work to decades of migration and urbanisation, which can make older voter lists inaccurate.

The former judges said a clean roll protects every genuine vote. They also noted that intensive revisions had occurred repeatedly since India’s first general elections, with the last SIR completed about two decades earlier. They argued that the current controversy appeared sudden, even though the stated rules and procedures were established in 1950.

What authority does Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 give the Election Commission, and what safeguards did the Supreme Court recognize?

Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 gives the Election Commission authority to revise electoral rolls at any time. The signatories cited this provision to argue that a Special Intensive Revision falls within the Commission’s legal and constitutional responsibilities.

They also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the SIR as lawful and within the Commission’s powers. According to the letter, the Court recognized that the exercise had a legitimate purpose: correcting voter lists. It also recognized safeguards designed to protect affected people during the process.

Those safeguards include notice, a hearing, the opportunity to object, and an appeal. Together, these steps provide ways for voters or others to challenge an entry or proposed change. The signatories used them to answer claims that the revision lacked protection. They argued that the procedure was not newly created in 2025, but rested on rules dating to 1950.

What could happen to India’s democratic process if repeated unsupported claims persuade citizens that their votes do not count?

The signatories warned that repeated unsupported claims could persuade citizens that elections are meaningless. That would weaken public faith in the electoral process, even when institutions and procedures continue to operate. They described trust as the currency of democracy because participation depends on confidence that votes are counted and elections are credible.

The letter gave a stark formulation: “When the ballot loses meaning, the street gains it.” This means political disputes may increasingly be expressed through protest and unrest rather than through voting, legal challenges and institutional channels. The article connects this warning to ongoing protests involving the Chief Election Commissioner and SIR.

The forward risk is erosion of democratic stability and acceptance of election outcomes. The signatories said India’s system has enabled peaceful transfers of power at the Centre and in the states. They urged parties, media and citizens to verify facts, reject unverified claims, and address grievances through evidence and due process.

Why are independent constitutional institutions, evidence-based challenges, and due process important for peaceful transfers of power?

Independent constitutional institutions matter because democratic power must be exercised through trusted rules, not personal authority. The signatories said India’s electoral system has repeatedly enabled peaceful transfers of power at the Centre and in the states. That outcome depends on institutions being able to perform their roles and citizens believing the process is legitimate.

Evidence-based challenges create a reliable standard for disputes. Instead of treating allegations as proof, parties can present material to the Election Commission and courts. Due process then supplies procedures such as notice, hearing, objection and appeal. The letter cited these safeguards in the SIR context and rejected public denigration as a substitute for proof.

The current dispute shows why this balance matters. The signatories urged political parties to contest elections without delegitimising them, and asked media outlets not to amplify unverified claims. They also called on constitutional bodies to remain transparent and responsive. These practices can protect public confidence and future peaceful transfers of power.

Key Facts:

📌 Forty-two former judges and constitutional-office veterans signed the open letter.

📌 The signatories said silence was no longer a neutral choice.

📌 They urged political complaints to rely on evidence and due process.

📌 The Election Commission oversees elections and maintains electoral rolls.

📌 Gyanesh Kumar is identified as the Chief Election Commissioner.

📌 The signatories urged the Commission to remain transparent and above political disputes.

📌 Forty-two former judges and retired constitutional-office veterans signed the letter.