Why India’s Election Commission is facing a test of credibility?
India’s Election Commission is facing a serious test of credibility because key segments of the public, opposition parties, and civil‑society voices now doubt its independence, transparency, and impartiality in handling critical electoral processes. This erosion of trust has built up over several interlinked developments, not a single event.
Alleged partisanship and bias
The Commission has been accused of acting in a manner that appears favourable to the ruling party, especially since 2014, including by critics who argue it has turned into a “political‑management arm” of the executive. Specific examples cited include perceived leniency in enforcing the Model Code of Conduct against the BJP and unusually timed major decisions close to elections, which opposition parties claim tilt the playing field.
Voter‑roll and EVM‑related controversies
Recent controversies around voter‑roll revisions—including large‑scale deletions in Bihar and alleged “fake” or duplicate entries in states such as Karnataka—have raised fears of disenfranchisement and manipulation. At the same time, continued resistance to more robust, independent verification of EVM‑VVPAT counts, and limited transparency on audit data, has fed suspicions that the electronic voting system is not fully open to scrutiny.
Changes in appointment process and institutional autonomy
The 2023 law replacing the Chief Justice‑led panel with a PM‑nominated minister in the selection committee for the Chief Election Commissioner has been widely criticized as weakening the Commission’s structural independence. Legal‑commentary pieces argue that, while the ECI’s powers under Article 324 remain intact, the perceived loss of insulation from the executive has damaged the “public trust” that underpins its constitutional role.
Declining public confidence and survey data
Surveys, such as those by Lokniti‑CSDS, show a marked drop in public confidence in the ECI, with no‑confidence percentages rising sharply in key states like Uttar Pradesh. Civil‑society commentators highlight that when the institution responds to concrete allegations with affidavits and procedural deflections rather than open, fact‑based explanations, the perception of defensiveness compounds credibility concerns.
In essence, the “test of credibility” stems from the collision between the ECI’s historic image as a neutral guardian of elections and the current perception that it is less autonomous, less transparent, and more vulnerable to political pressure—especially in high‑stakes national polls.
