Modi, Shah and BJP's Blind Defence of the CEC: Has the Election Commission Become a Political Ally?
When the independence of India's Election Commission is under serious question, why is the Prime Minister and his ruling party more interested in protecting its Chief Election Commissioner than protecting the credibility of democracy?
India's democracy rests on several important constitutional institutions. Among them, the Election Commission of India occupies a particularly crucial position. It is entrusted with conducting free, fair and impartial elections, ensuring that every eligible citizen enjoys the constitutional right to vote and that no political party receives an unfair advantage.
The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), therefore, is not supposed to be an ally of the ruling party, an opponent of the Opposition or an instrument of the government. He is expected to function independently, fearlessly and impartially, in accordance with the Constitution.
Unfortunately, the functioning of the Election Commission under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has become the subject of an unprecedented controversy. Serious questions have been raised not merely by Opposition politicians but also by the two other Election Commissioners, whose reported objections have exposed an extraordinary internal crisis within the country's highest electoral authority.
And what is the response of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah and the BJP? Instead of demonstrating genuine concern about these disturbing developments and demanding complete transparency, they appear determined to defend the CEC politically and discredit those questioning his conduct.
This raises an uncomfortable but unavoidable question: Why is the BJP so determined to protect the CEC if his conduct is genuinely beyond question?
1. An unprecedented revolt within the Election Commission
One of the most disturbing revelations came through an investigative report by The Indian Express, which documented at least 14 formal objections recorded over ten months by the two other Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
These objections reportedly concerned decisions relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, including the addition of new voters, deletion and restoration of names, changes to voter-registration procedures and the centralisation of electoral-roll databases.
The two Commissioners reportedly complained that important decisions had been taken without their knowledge or recommendation. They also raised objections to certain changes described as unauthorised and illegal.
More seriously, they expressed concerns about the centralisation of the electoral database and restrictions on the access of state-level electoral authorities to the relevant digital systems.
When two out of the three members of a constitutional institution repeatedly raise such serious concerns about its functioning, the country cannot simply dismiss the matter as routine administrative disagreement.
The Election Commission is a multi-member constitutional body. Its collective functioning and statutory decision-making procedures must be respected. The CEC cannot be allowed to create the impression that the entire institution is merely an extension of his individual office.
2. The shocking controversy surrounding voter-list revisions
The nationwide Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls has generated widespread concern.
The exercise has affected an enormous number of voters. Reports have highlighted the exclusion of more than 13 crore names from draft electoral rolls across 30 States and Union Territories, although the Election Commission maintains that the exercise is intended to remove deceased, duplicate, shifted and otherwise ineligible entries.
The fundamental question is not whether electoral rolls should be cleaned up. Of course they should. The question is whether the process is transparent, fair, accessible and sufficiently protective of the voting rights of genuine citizens.
A voter should never lose the opportunity to exercise his or her democratic right because of confusing documentation requirements, administrative failures, inaccessible digital systems or arbitrary decisions.
The controversy became particularly serious in West Bengal, where the Supreme Court had to intervene in the handling of voters identified through the SIR process. Judicial officers were entrusted with examining cases involving alleged discrepancies, and tribunals were subsequently provided for appeals.
The reported filing of approximately 16.10 lakh appeals against voters whose inclusion had been restored by judicial officers raised another disturbing question: Who authorised these appeals, and in whose name were they filed?
Even Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu reportedly questioned the authority behind the filing of these appeals.
These are not trivial administrative matters. They concern the most fundamental democratic right of citizens: the right to vote.
3. The Supreme Court contradicts the Election Commission's explanation
Perhaps one of the most embarrassing developments for the Election Commission concerns the controversial modification of Form 6, the application form used by new voters.
The Election Commission had suggested that the Supreme Court had upheld the declaration attached to Form 6 used during the SIR exercise. However, when the matter came before the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Surya Kant made it explicitly clear that the Court had not approved any modified version of Form 6.
The Court also wanted to examine the original records to establish who had made the modifications and under whose authority.
This is extremely significant. An institution entrusted with protecting the voting rights of citizens cannot casually invoke the authority of the Supreme Court to justify a controversial administrative action if the Court has not actually approved that action.
The Supreme Court had upheld the general legality of the Bihar SIR exercise in May 2026, subject to safeguards. That judgment, however, cannot be misrepresented as blanket approval of every subsequent change to electoral forms, software or administrative procedures.
The distinction matters enormously.
4. Fourteen objections are not an isolated disagreement
The revelations about the two Election Commissioners go much further than the Form 6 controversy.
Among the issues reported are:
Unilateral decision-making: Allegations that important decisions were taken without the knowledge or recommendations of the other Commissioners.
Questionable changes to voter registration: Objections to additional requirements introduced through the online voter-registration process.
Centralisation of voter data: Concerns that control over electoral databases was increasingly concentrated in Delhi, potentially weakening the authority of statutory officials at the constituency level.
Restricted access to electoral software: Complaints that Electoral Registration Officers did not have proper and complete access to the systems required to discharge their statutory responsibilities.
Lack of transparency over appeals: Questions about who authorised the filing of 16.10 lakh appeals against voters whose inclusion had been restored by judicial officers in West Bengal.
Weakening of institutional oversight: Concerns raised by the two Commissioners about changes to the IT division's administrative structure and the removal of an important layer of oversight.
Possible disenfranchisement through administrative failures: Reports of eligible voters facing difficulties because of software and procedural problems.
These issues go to the very heart of the Election Commission's constitutional responsibility.
The Commission has subsequently defended its functioning before the Supreme Court, maintaining that its three major SIR orders were unanimous and that observations or objections raised during internal discussions did not necessarily represent final institutional decisions.
That defence must also be examined fairly. But it does not erase the need to explain why such repeated objections were recorded in the first place.
5. Why are Modi and Amit Shah so eager to defend the CEC?
This is where the conduct of the BJP leadership becomes particularly questionable.
The Prime Minister and the Home Minister should be the first to insist that the Election Commission remain above political suspicion. They should welcome an independent investigation into the allegations, demand transparency and ensure that every eligible Indian citizen's voting rights are protected.
Instead, the BJP leadership's political defence of the CEC creates the impression that protecting the individual has become more important than protecting the institution.
Why should the ruling party be so worried about criticism of the CEC?
If the allegations are baseless, let the evidence establish that. If the procedures were lawful, let the original records demonstrate it. If all decisions were genuinely taken in accordance with the law, there should be no hesitation in allowing an independent examination.
A constitutional authority should never need a political publicity campaign to establish its credibility.
The Prime Minister and the Home Minister must understand that the Election Commission does not belong to the BJP or the NDA government. It belongs to the people of India.
The CEC is not expected to enjoy the confidence of the Prime Minister alone. He must command the confidence of citizens across political, religious, regional and ideological divisions.
6. The rejection of the Opposition's removal motion raises further questions
The Opposition's demand for accountability was not limited to press conferences, public statements or demonstrations.
On March 12, 2026, Opposition MPs submitted formal motions seeking the removal of Gyanesh Kumar as Chief Election Commissioner. The motion was supported by 130 Lok Sabha MPs and 63 Rajya Sabha MPs.
However, both the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman rejected the motions in April.
What makes the episode particularly controversial is that the decisions rejecting the motions did not provide detailed reasons accessible to the public.
The constitutional process for removing a CEC is deliberately stringent. Article 324(5) provides protection comparable to that enjoyed by a Supreme Court judge, requiring removal through the prescribed parliamentary procedure on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
This protection is intended to safeguard the independence of the Election Commission from political interference. It must not become a shield against legitimate scrutiny or a reason to avoid answering serious questions.
The Opposition's demand for accountability deserves consideration on its merits, rather than being dismissed simply because it comes from political parties opposed to the government.
7. The real danger: An Election Commission perceived as a BJP ally
The most serious consequence of this controversy is the growing public perception that the Election Commission is no longer functioning with the political neutrality expected of a constitutional authority.
The Opposition has repeatedly alleged that the Commission's decisions and electoral-roll exercises are favouring the BJP. The ruling party naturally rejects these accusations. But when two of the three Election Commissioners themselves reportedly raise repeated objections to the Commission's functioning, the government cannot expect the public to dismiss every allegation as political propaganda.
Consider the implications.
If voters begin to believe that electoral rolls can be manipulated, that eligible citizens can be excluded through questionable procedures, that statutory safeguards can be weakened and that the Election Commission is more responsive to the interests of the ruling party than to the Constitution, public confidence in elections will inevitably suffer.
Democracy does not depend merely on holding elections every five years. It depends on the people's confidence that their votes count, their voting rights are protected and the institution conducting the elections is impartial.
Even the perception of political favouritism in such an important institution is dangerous.
And when the Prime Minister and Home Minister appear more interested in defending the CEC than addressing these concerns, they only deepen public suspicion.
8. Modi must protect democracy, not an individual office-holder
Narendra Modi has repeatedly spoken about India's democratic greatness and its position as the world's largest democracy. But democratic greatness cannot be established through speeches, slogans and election victories.
It must be demonstrated through respect for constitutional institutions, accountability, transparency and the protection of citizens' fundamental democratic rights.
The BJP cannot demand unquestioning respect for the Election Commission while simultaneously treating every question about its functioning as an attack on democracy.
On the contrary, questioning a constitutional authority when credible concerns arise is itself an essential part of democratic accountability.
The Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the BJP should stop treating this controversy as a political battle to be won against the Opposition. They should instead facilitate a genuinely independent examination of the allegations, make the relevant records public wherever legally permissible and ensure that the rights of every eligible voter are protected.
The CEC must be accountable to the Constitution, not to the Prime Minister. The Election Commission must be accountable to the people, not to the ruling party.
Conclusion: Whose side is the BJP really on?
The central question is no longer merely whether Gyanesh Kumar should continue as Chief Election Commissioner. It is whether the BJP leadership understands the importance of maintaining an independent Election Commission in a parliamentary democracy.
The Opposition's allegations cannot automatically be treated as established facts. Equally, the government's political defence cannot be treated as proof of the CEC's innocence.
But the repeated objections reportedly recorded by two Election Commissioners, the controversies surrounding voter-list revisions, questions about electoral software and data centralisation, the Form 6 controversy and the Supreme Court's insistence on examining the original records collectively demand serious and independent scrutiny.
If the CEC is genuinely impartial, an independent investigation should establish that beyond reasonable doubt.
But if the BJP leadership continues to defend him politically, attack his critics and avoid addressing the substantive allegations, it will only strengthen the suspicion that the CEC is functioning more like a political ally of the BJP than an independent constitutional authority.
The question every Indian citizen should ask Narendra Modi, Amit Shah and the BJP is simple:
Are you protecting the independence and credibility of the Election Commission of India, or are you protecting an individual whose conduct has raised serious questions about that very independence?
India needs an Election Commission that is trusted by every political party and every citizen, irrespective of whom they vote for. It does not need an Election Commission whose credibility appears to depend on the political protection of the ruling party.
The Constitution must be supreme. No Prime Minister, no Home Minister, no political party and no Chief Election Commissioner is above it.
