The ECI’s unfinished lessons

The Election Commission of India, or ECI, is the constitutional authority responsible for administering elections. Its work includes maintaining electoral rolls, overseeing polling and handling election records. Its central duty is to protect equal participation by eligible voters.

That duty appears in several examples. The ECI’s Special Intensive Revision updates voter lists, while Form 7 allows requests to delete names. It also publishes turnout figures and holds records connected with polling. These functions require accurate information and clear procedures.

The article presents the ECI as an institution tested by mass revisions, disputed deletions and questions about record access. It need not accept every political allegation, but its decisions should be supported by verifiable evidence. Accurate rolls, traceable requests, timely appeals and examinable records are essential to public confidence.

Around 65 lakh names were missing from Bihar’s draft electoral roll published in August 2025 during the Special Intensive Revision. A missing name can prevent an otherwise eligible person from voting, so the scale of the omission makes verification especially important.

The Commission said the exclusions reflected deaths, migration and duplicate entries. These are ordinary reasons for updating a roll because electoral records must reflect current voters and avoid repeated entries. However, a general reason does not explain each individual case.

The article says voters should be able to check why their names were left out and challenge mistakes. The Supreme Court directed the ECI to publish the excluded voters’ list with reasons. The broader lesson is that cleaning rolls and protecting voters must happen together, before election day.

Voters need the reason for exclusion because an electoral roll decision can directly determine whether they cast a ballot. Without that explanation, people cannot tell whether the omission reflects a death record, migration, duplication or a simple mistake. Transparency turns an unexplained deletion into a decision that can be checked.

The article gives Bihar as a clear example. Around 65 lakh names were absent from the draft roll, and the Supreme Court directed the ECI to publish excluded names with reasons. In West Bengal, more than 27 lakh names were deleted during adjudication, leading to about 22 lakh appeals.

Appeals must also work in practice. Technical problems affected West Bengal’s portal, including notices, hearings and restoration of names. If correction arrives after polling, the remedy is useless for that election. Early notice and timely review protect the vote itself.

Form 7 is the process through which an elector can seek deletion of a name from the electoral roll. It can help correct genuine problems, such as an incorrect or duplicate entry. Because deletion can remove someone’s voting opportunity, each request needs careful verification.

In Aland, Karnataka, 6,018 online applications sought deletions. The ECI said 5,994 were incorrect and rejected, while only 24 were accepted after verification. An inquiry followed and an FIR was registered. This shows that safeguards can stop false requests, but it also raises questions when applications appear concentrated.

The ECI should establish who submitted such applications and whether identities or documents were misused. Every request should create a verifiable record of the applicant, supporting evidence and final decision. That paper trail makes abuse easier to detect and genuine deletions easier to defend.

Provisional turnout figures are early estimates, while final figures are updated after polling parties return and records are scrutinised. A difference can therefore arise without proving that votes were improperly cast. Still, a large change affects public understanding of participation and deserves an explanation.

The article cites Maharashtra’s 2024 Assembly election. Reported turnout increased from 58.22% at 5 p.m. to 66.05% in the final figure. The Commission said the first number was provisional and that data continued to be updated as polling parties submitted records.

That explanation addresses the mechanism, but transparency requires enough detail for the public to follow the change. Clear reporting can distinguish routine updating from a genuine irregularity. Without it, uncertainty grows, even when the figures alone do not establish improper voting.

Polling records allow people to examine whether election procedures were followed rather than relying only on competing claims. Electronic material can preserve what happened at polling locations and help courts, officials or other authorised reviewers test allegations against evidence.

The article specifically mentions CCTV footage and webcasting material. In December 2024, the government amended Rule 93 of the Conduct of Elections Rules after a Punjab and Haryana High Court order sought election-related records in a Haryana Assembly election case. The amendment raised concerns about public access to electronic records.

The key issue is balance. Privacy may justify limits on disclosure, but restrictions can also reduce independent scrutiny. The timing of the amendment therefore prompted questions about its purpose. Accessible, examinable records help establish facts and strengthen confidence in the election process.

The appointment method matters because election commissioners oversee the institution that manages democratic contests. If the selection process appears controlled by one side, citizens and political parties may doubt whether the ECI can act independently. Public trust depends not only on formal authority, but also on credible institutional safeguards.

In Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court prescribed an interim committee of the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and Chief Justice of India. Parliament later replaced the Chief Justice with a Union Cabinet Minister. The government consequently controls two of the three selection positions.

The article says this arrangement hardly inspires confidence in the ECI’s independence. The Commission need not accept every political allegation, but it should operate in a way that can withstand scrutiny. A more broadly trusted appointment process would support confidence in election decisions and remedies.