42 former judges defend ECI, slam ‘calculated campaign’ driven by ‘vested political interests’

What did the 42 former judges accuse political groups and activist organisations of doing in their open letter?

The former judges described what they called a calculated campaign by vested political interests and activist organisations. They said a political party that governed India for more than five decades now claimed the electoral system was rigged. They also said activist outfits gave those claims a legal appearance through selective litigation.

The letter alleged that petitions were filed one after another, often without proof. According to the judges, court proceedings became public stages, while judgments were criticised when they did not serve the petitioners’ interests. They said hostile language was then amplified widely to weaken confidence in the judiciary.

The judges also criticised allegations made at press conferences rather than in court. They said claims about vote theft were not supported by sworn declarations when requested by the Election Commission. Their broader concern was that repeated, unsupported attacks could damage trust in courts, election authorities and other constitutional institutions.

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

The Election Commission of India is an independent constitutional authority that oversees the country’s election process. Its role includes administering elections, maintaining electoral rolls and applying election rules. These functions matter because voters and political parties need a trusted body to organise voting and handle complaints.

The article highlights one practical responsibility: revising electoral rolls. The former judges defended this exercise as a way to create accurate voter lists and support free and fair elections. They also said political parties should take complaints to the Commission instead of relying only on public allegations.

The Commission’s authority depends partly on public confidence. The judges said criticism had gone beyond legitimate scrutiny when election officials faced public accusations and threats, despite no court establishing the allegations. The Commission can still be questioned, but formal complaints, evidence and judicial review provide more reliable ways to test its decisions than unsupported statements.

How large is the Election Commission's responsibility, given that it administers elections in the world's largest democracy?

The Commission’s scale is defined by the size and importance of India’s democratic system. The article calls India the world’s largest democracy and says the country’s electoral system has chosen a party that governed for more than five decades. Managing elections in such a system requires public trust in common rules and institutions.

One concrete part of that responsibility is revising electoral rolls. The former judges said this work is intended to support accurate voter lists and free and fair elections. The Commission also faces complaints about election procedures and allegations concerning voting, which political parties are expected to raise through formal channels.

The article does not provide a voter total, geographic breakdown or staffing figure. It does show the wider pressure surrounding the Commission. Election officials faced accusations and threats, while claims about vote theft spread publicly. If confidence falls, disputes may become harder to resolve and institutional stability may suffer.

What are the allegations of “vote theft,” and why did the former judges object to the way those allegations were being made?

“Vote theft” refers here to allegations that votes or the electoral process were improperly manipulated. The article does not identify the party making the claims or establish that the allegations were true. It reports that the claims were directed at election authorities and became part of a wider dispute over electoral legitimacy.

The former judges focused on the method used to present the allegations. They said claims were made at press conferences rather than before courts. When the Commission sought a sworn declaration, they said none was filed. They also pointed to claims about Electronic Voting Machines appearing after defeats, while victories using the same machines were not questioned.

The judges argued that serious allegations should be tested through evidence and formal proceedings. They said no court had established the accusations against election authorities. Their concern was that repeated public claims, especially when amplified widely, could weaken confidence in elections and constitutional institutions.

What could happen to elections and democratic stability if citizens lose confidence in the Election Commission, courts, and other constitutional institutions?

Public confidence helps elections function as a shared process. Citizens and political parties must accept that voter lists, voting procedures and legal challenges are handled by institutions rather than settled only through public pressure. The former judges warned that attacks on institutions had moved beyond legitimate criticism.

The article gives several signs of this pressure. Election officials faced public accusations and threats. Allegations of vote theft were made at press conferences, while the judges said no court had established them. They also criticised attacks on the judiciary and statutory bodies, saying such conduct could erode confidence in a widely trusted judicial system.

If trust declines, losing parties or citizens may reject results, and disputes may become more polarised. The article connects this danger to the potentially devastating consequences of destabilising the world’s largest democracy. The judges urged parties to use the Commission and courts, media to verify claims, and citizens to assess information carefully.

What formal routes are available for challenging election procedures or results, and why do courts generally require evidence such as sworn statements?

The article identifies two formal routes: complaints can be taken to the Election Commission and to courts. These routes matter because they create a structured process for examining election procedures, voter lists and alleged wrongdoing. The former judges urged political parties to use them instead of relying primarily on public accusations.

A key mechanism is the sworn declaration. The judges said the Commission requested one regarding vote-theft allegations, but none was filed. A sworn statement places a claim formally before an authority and makes the claimant accountable for its accuracy. Courts likewise need evidence to determine whether an allegation is established.

Formal review does not mean institutions are beyond criticism. It means criticism can be tested against records, procedures and proof. The article says no court had established the allegations against election authorities. Evidence-based challenges can therefore protect both the right to contest decisions and public confidence in the outcome.

Why do independent election bodies and courts matter in a constitutional democracy, even though they can still be criticised and held accountable?

Independent election bodies and courts matter because they provide common institutions for resolving disputes. Elections need trusted procedures for voter lists, voting and complaints. Courts can assess whether allegations are established. This helps a constitutional democracy manage disagreement without allowing every contested result to become a crisis.

The article shows this role through the Election Commission’s revision of electoral rolls. The former judges said the exercise supports accurate voter lists and free and fair elections. They also said parties should bring complaints to the Commission and courts. When allegations were instead made at press conferences without sworn declarations, the judges viewed that as a threat to institutional confidence.

Accountability remains possible through criticism, complaints and judicial review. The judges did not say institutions should be immune from scrutiny; they objected to attacks, accusations and threats unsupported by proof. They called for verified reporting, careful assessment by citizens and peaceful protest, combining institutional independence with public responsibility.

Key Facts:

📌 Forty-two former judges signed the open letter.

📌 The judges alleged selective litigation often lacked proof.

📌 They said attacks were amplified to erode trust in courts.

📌 The Commission revises electoral rolls.

📌 The judges linked accurate voter lists to fair elections.

📌 Political parties were urged to pursue complaints through the Commission.

📌 India is described as the world’s largest democracy.