‘System can’t be honest when you win and rigged when you lose’: 124 ex-bureaucrats defend Election Commission, SIR exercise

The 124 former IAS, IFS and allied services officers defended the Election Commission of India amid protests and allegations of electoral irregularities. They argued that criticism should be supported by evidence, warning that unsubstantiated claims could weaken confidence in democratic institutions. Their central message was that the electoral system should not be called fair only when one side wins.

They also pointed to changes in election safeguards. These include polling agents, sealed electronic voting machines, strong-room security and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail verification. The officers said the ruling party at the Centre had lost several state elections under the same Commission and did not win an outright majority alone in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

They described the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, as necessary for accurate electoral rolls. They said it helps identify deceased voters, duplicate entries and people who have permanently moved away. They also cited draft rolls, claims, objections, hearings and appeals as protections against wrongful removal.

The Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a process for reviewing electoral rolls. Its stated purpose is to keep voter lists accurate and current. The 124 former civil servants who defended it said the exercise identifies entries connected to deceased voters, duplicate registrations and people who have permanently shifted residence.

The article presents SIR as more than a deletion exercise. It says the process includes publishing draft electoral rolls, allowing people to file claims and objections, holding hearings and providing avenues for appeal. These steps are intended to address concerns that eligible voters could be removed by mistake.

SIR matters because electoral rolls determine which citizens appear on the voter list. The former officials supported the exercise amid protests and allegations against the Election Commission. The article does not provide detailed evidence standards or field procedures for confirming each type of entry, but it describes the review and challenge mechanisms included in the process.

The article describes two separate open letters involving 166 people altogether. One was signed by 124 former bureaucrats. The other came from 42 former judges and retired constitutional officeholders. Both groups addressed concerns about the Election Commission and democratic institutions, but their letters had different emphases.

The 124 signatories were former IAS, IFS and allied services officers. They defended the Election Commission, the electoral safeguards described in their letter and the Special Intensive Revision of voter rolls. They also argued that allegations should be supported by proof and said the system should not be judged differently depending on who wins.

The second group consisted of former judges and retired constitutional officeholders. They said they had no political brief and were speaking because “silence is no longer a neutral choice.” They warned that constitutional bodies faced politically driven attacks and said undermining public trust could have serious consequences for democratic institutions.

The former civil servants said SIR includes safeguards intended to prevent eligible voters from being wrongly excluded. Their purpose is to make the review accountable rather than allowing names to disappear without notice or recourse. The article presents these protections as part of the process for maintaining accurate electoral rolls.

The concrete safeguards are publication of draft electoral rolls, opportunities to submit claims and objections, hearings and provisions for appeals. A person who believes an entry is wrongly affected can therefore use the stated challenge procedures. The article does not explain the deadlines, documents or decision-making standards for these steps.

These mechanisms matter because the SIR exercise is being questioned amid protests and allegations of irregularities. The former officers argued that concerns can be raised, but allegations should be proved. Whether the safeguards work in practice depends on how claims, objections, hearings and appeals are administered, an issue the article does not detail.

The purpose of SIR, according to the former civil servants, is to identify three types of problematic entries: deceased voters, duplicate registrations and individuals who have permanently shifted residence. Removing such entries is presented as a way to keep electoral rolls accurate. However, the article does not describe the databases, documents, verification visits or other evidence used to establish these facts.

The procedure it does identify begins with publishing draft electoral rolls. People can then file claims and objections. The process also includes hearings and provisions for appeals. These stages create opportunities to challenge an entry or contest a possible wrongful exclusion, although the article gives no details about who conducts the hearings or what proof is required.

This distinction is important. The article explains the categories being reviewed and the available procedural safeguards, not the detailed evidence chain behind each decision. The 124 former officials called SIR necessary, while critics have raised concerns about electoral irregularities and possible exclusions.

The letter describes Indian elections as having moved away from an era associated with booth capturing, ballot-box stuffing and election-related violence. The former civil servants presented this as a significant transformation in how elections are conducted and protected. Their argument is that the current system contains multiple checks that were not represented by that earlier description.

They specifically cited polling agents, the sealing of electronic voting machines, strong-room security and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail verification. These safeguards are intended to provide oversight during polling, protect machines after voting and allow paper records to be checked. The article does not measure how often these safeguards are used or assess their effectiveness statistically.

The comparison forms part of the officers’ broader defence of the Election Commission. They noted that the ruling party at the Centre lost several state elections under the same Commission and failed to secure an outright majority alone in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. They said allegations still require proof.

Representative democracy depends on voters being correctly listed and on election authorities applying procedures fairly. Accurate rolls help ensure eligible citizens can participate while limiting errors such as duplicate or outdated entries. Independent administration matters because competing parties and voters need confidence that the process is not controlled for one side. These broader democratic principles frame the concerns described in the article.

The former officials pointed to polling agents, sealed EVMs, strong-room security and VVPAT verification as safeguards supporting election integrity. They also defended SIR’s draft rolls, claims, objections, hearings and appeals. The separate group of 42 former judges and constitutional officeholders warned that sustained attacks on constitutional bodies could undermine public trust.

The current dispute shows why credibility matters beyond one election. The former bureaucrats said a system cannot be honest when someone wins and rigged when they lose. They also said unsubstantiated allegations weaken democratic institutions. The article indicates that evidence-based scrutiny and functioning safeguards remain central to confidence in future elections.