Ashok Lavasa: Ex-EC urges poll panel to regain public trust amid calls for Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation

Lavasa’s central appeal was for the Election Commission to restore its credibility and public trust. He warned that an election body must be seen as impartial because it acts as the umpire in a democracy. His concern matters because doubts about the referee can spread to the result itself.

He spoke virtually to a citizens’ convention in Kolkata on 13 October. His remarks came during united protests by the INDIA bloc, which alleged “vote chori” and sought Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation. The protests followed reports of objections to decisions connected with the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, of electoral rolls.

Lavasa said the Commission was unusually caught in controversy and that people were taking to the streets. The Election Commission has defended its procedures, saying differing views are normal and its orders have legal sanction. Lavasa’s message is that transparency and neutrality must be visibly restored.

The Election Commission of India is the institution responsible for administering elections in the country. Its work includes overseeing electoral processes and maintaining the systems that allow eligible citizens to vote. The article describes its position as very high, possibly the highest among public institutions, because elections depend on its decisions.

A key example is the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. That process was under the supervision of the full Commission during its national rollout. The Commission also issues orders and follows statutory procedures while conducting election-related work. These decisions shape how the electoral system operates.

The current controversy shows why the institution’s role is important. Two commissioners reportedly objected to decisions linked to the SIR, while the Commission said differing views are normal and its orders have legal sanction. If voters doubt its neutrality, they may question not only its conduct but also the winning team’s victory.

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a detailed exercise to review and update electoral rolls. Electoral rolls are the official lists used to identify people who can vote. Because names can be added, corrected, or removed during such a process, an SIR can directly affect whether individuals are able to cast ballots.

In this case, the Election Commission decided to conduct an SIR and rolled it out nationally under the full Commission’s supervision. Lavasa said the decision surprised everyone. He also said people had not been so worried about protecting their voting rights in the previous 16 months, linking the concern directly to the revision process.

The dispute concerns both the process and the Commission’s internal handling of it. Two commissioners reportedly objected repeatedly to decisions and orders they said were issued without their knowledge. The Commission responded that differing views are normal and that its orders follow established statutory procedures.

The reported scale of internal disagreement was substantial. An Indian Express report said objections were recorded at least 14 times during the previous 10 months. The objections concerned decisions and orders that two commissioners said had been issued without their knowledge.

The officials identified were Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. Their objections arose while the national rollout of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls was under the supervision of the full Commission. This made the issue especially sensitive because voter lists affect access to elections.

The Election Commission rejected the idea that internal differences automatically invalidate its work. It said differing views and observations are a normal part of institutional deliberations. It also said every officer can suggest improvements, and that all orders carry full legal sanction and follow established statutory procedures. Still, the repeated objections have intensified public concern about transparency and trust.

The full Election Commission is the three-member body made up of the Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners. In the situation described, those members are CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, and Vivek Joshi. The full Commission supervised the national rollout of the SIR.

Disagreement within this body can matter because major election decisions are associated with the Commission as a whole. The report said Sandhu and Joshi objected at least 14 times to decisions and orders they said were issued without their knowledge. Such objections raise questions about consultation, authority, and the record behind decisions.

The Commission said differing views and observations are normal in any institution. It also said every officer may offer suggestions and that all orders have legal sanction. Even when disagreements do not legally cancel decisions, public disclosure of repeated disputes can affect confidence in the Commission’s unity and transparency.

If voters believe the election umpire was not neutral, they may doubt whether the result was fairly produced. The immediate consequence is not necessarily a legal reversal. It is a loss of confidence in the winning side and in the process that declared it victorious.

Lavasa explained this through cricket. He said people would question the winning team’s victory if they felt the umpire was not neutral. In the article’s context, opposition parties were protesting alleged “vote chori” and irregularities in the SIR, while seeking the CEC’s resignation. These claims create a direct link between institutional credibility and acceptance of results.

The Election Commission has defended its orders as legally valid and procedurally established. However, Lavasa said it must regain public trust. Unless concerns about neutrality and transparency are addressed, protests and suspicion could continue, making it harder for a government to enjoy broad public acceptance after winning.

Impartial election administrators are foundational because they act as the trusted umpire between competing political sides. Accurate voter lists are equally important because they determine whose participation is recognised. Together, neutrality and reliable rolls help ensure that citizens can vote and that the result is accepted as fair.

The article illustrates both risks. Lavasa said the Election Commission was mired in controversies and warned that people may question a winning team’s victory if the umpire seems biased. He also linked public anxiety about voting rights to the SIR of electoral rolls. The revision could affect the names and status of voters.

The Commission says its decisions follow statutory procedures and have legal sanction. Yet legal validity alone may not settle public doubts. Repeated internal objections and street protests show why openness matters. Rebuilding confidence requires the Commission to demonstrate that decisions are properly considered, voter lists are handled carefully, and all sides receive equal treatment.