Group of 42 ex-judges defends SIR, slams opposition attack on Election Commission

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

The Election Commission of India is the constitutional authority responsible for administering elections. It prepares and maintains electoral rolls, conducts polling, and oversees the process so eligible citizens can vote and results can be accepted as legitimate. The article places the EC at the centre of India’s constitutional system.

Its role becomes especially important when political parties dispute voter lists or election procedures. The 42 retired judges defended the EC’s Special Intensive Review, saying a clean roll protects every genuine vote. They also urged parties to take grievances to the EC and courts with evidence.

The article portrays current criticism as a challenge to public confidence. It says constitutional authorities have been called “thieves,” “puppets” and “compromised.” If the EC loses credibility, citizens may doubt both elections and the institutions that safeguard them.

What is a Special Intensive Review (SIR) of electoral rolls, and why is it used?

A Special Intensive Review is a thorough checking and updating of electoral rolls. Its purpose is to identify problems in the voter list and help ensure that eligible voters are represented accurately. The article does not give the review’s detailed procedures, but it says the judges regarded a clean roll as protection for every genuine vote.

The controversy arose because opposition criticism focused sharply on the SIR. The retired judges called the uproar “sudden” and “remarkably convenient.” Their argument was that reviewing the roll strengthens elections rather than weakening them, provided the process is properly conducted and challenged with evidence when necessary.

The article presents SIR as an immediate political flashpoint. The judges appealed to parties not to delegitimise elections. They said complaints should go to the Election Commission and courts, supported by proof, so disputes can be examined through constitutional institutions rather than public accusations.

Who are the 42 retired judges, and what action did they take in response to the opposition's criticism?

The group was made up of 42 retired judges. It included former Supreme Court judges Hemant Gupta and Pankaj Mittal, several former high court chief justices, and retired judges from various high courts. Their shared intervention was presented as a defence of constitutional institutions.

In an open letter, they criticised the opposition’s attack on the Election Commission. They said it appeared to be a calculated campaign driven by “vested political interests” and warned of potentially devastating consequences for the world’s largest democracy. They also defended the EC’s Special Intensive Review of electoral rolls.

The judges said they held no brief for any political party, but silence was no longer neutral. They urged parties to stop delegitimising elections and to take complaints to the Election Commission and courts with evidence. Their statement directly challenged claims that constitutional bodies were compromised.

How large is the electorate managed by India's Election Commission, and why does that make disputes over voter lists especially significant?

India’s Election Commission manages elections in the world’s largest democracy, according to the article. The source does not state the electorate’s exact size, so no precise figure can be taken from it. Even without that number, the scale is plainly national and enormous, involving citizens across a vast democratic system.

That scale makes electoral rolls especially important. A voter list determines who can participate, while a clean roll helps protect every genuine vote, the 42 retired judges argued. A dispute over the roll is therefore not a small administrative matter. It can affect confidence in whether representation reflects citizens’ choices.

The article says attacks on the EC can have destabilising consequences. If large numbers of citizens believe their votes do not count, faith in elections may weaken. The judges therefore urged parties to raise specific complaints before the EC and courts, using evidence rather than broad allegations.

Why does the opposition challenge the SIR and the Election Commission, including its claims about electronic voting machines?

The article describes opposition criticism as an attack on the Election Commission and says the SIR triggered a sudden political uproar. It does not present a detailed opposition case about the review’s procedures. Instead, it reports the retired judges’ response: they saw the campaign as politically motivated and warned that it could weaken trust in elections.

The judges also targeted claims about electronic voting machines. They said, “EVMs are blamed only after defeat,” while victories won on the same machines are not questioned. They pointed to Congress, which governed India for over five decades, and said it now claims the system that elected it is rigged.

The current dispute therefore concerns consistency, proof, and institutional trust. The judges said activist groups often file petitions without proof and criticise judgments that displease them. They urged political parties to bring evidence-based complaints to the EC and courts instead of delegitimising elections publicly.

What could happen to elections and public order if citizens lose trust in the ballot and believe that constitutional institutions are illegitimate?

The article links electoral trust with public order. The retired judges warned that repeatedly telling citizens their votes do not count can make them stop believing in the ballot. For representative democracy, that is dangerous because elections depend not only on voting, but also on public acceptance of the process and its institutions.

They described a possible chain of events: the ballot loses meaning, the street gains it, and unrest begins with a narrative. Anarchic and fringe elements may then occupy the vacuum. The judges also alleged that some groups took cues from beyond India’s borders, although the article provides no supporting details.

Their warning is about consequences, not a claim that such a breakdown has already occurred. They appealed to political parties to avoid delegitimising elections. Instead, they said grievances should be presented to the Election Commission and courts with evidence, allowing disputes to remain within constitutional channels.

How are electoral rolls, independent election authorities, courts, and evidence-based challenges supposed to protect representative democracy?

Representative democracy needs both accurate participation and trusted institutions. Electoral rolls help identify who can vote, while an independent election authority administers the process. Courts provide another channel for reviewing disputes. These safeguards matter because citizens must believe that genuine votes are included and that complaints can be heard fairly.

The article illustrates this structure through the SIR controversy. The 42 retired judges said a clean roll protects every genuine vote. They urged political parties to take grievances to the Election Commission and courts with evidence. Their criticism was aimed at public claims that institutions were “thieves,” “puppets” or “compromised.”

Evidence-based challenges preserve a route for correction without destroying confidence in elections. The judges warned that repeated unsupported claims can make citizens believe their votes do not count. Their forward-looking appeal was clear: scrutinise institutions when necessary, but use constitutional channels and proof rather than delegitimising the entire system.

Key Facts:

📌 The EC stands at the centre of the constitutional controversy described.

📌 The judges said a clean roll protects every genuine vote.

📌 Political parties were urged to present grievances to the EC and courts.

📌 The judges defended the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Review.

📌 They said a clean electoral roll protects every genuine vote.

📌 The article calls the uproar over SIR sudden and convenient.

📌 Forty-two retired judges signed the open letter.