Why the Crisis of Trust in the ECI Can No Longer Be Ignored?
A “crisis of trust” in the Election Commission of India (ECI) can no longer be ignored because multiple episodes—ranging from procedural lapses to uneven enforcement and sharply declining public confidence—have cumulatively undermined the perception that elections are being conducted in a fair, impartial and transparent manner.
What has triggered the crisis?
Several recent developments have fed the perception of institutional decline:
-
Kerala letter controversy: An ECI–style letter bearing a political party’s seal sparked a row over “procedural integrity,” dismissed officially as a “clerical error,” but widely read as part of a larger pattern of opacity.
-
Selective enforcement of Model Code of Conduct (MCC): Parties across the spectrum allege that the ECI enforces MCC more leniently or selectively, especially against opposition leaders, deepening suspicion of bias.
-
Voter‑roll revisions and SIR concerns: Intensive revision of electoral rolls (SIR) in Bihar and other states, often without adequate consultation or preparation, has raised questions about “vote‑benefit” manipulation and exclusion of genuine voters.
Declining public and elite trust
Empirical data now show that trust in the ECI is not just a political grievance but a measurable public‑opinion trend:
-
A Lokniti–CSDS survey of six states/UTs (including Uttar Pradesh, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh) found that the share of people expressing no trust in the ECI has risen from single‑digit to around 30% in key states.
-
At the same time, opposition leaders and even some civil‑society groups have openly accused the ECI of being “pliable” or unfair, especially after the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
Why it can no longer be ignored
Ignoring this crisis is politically and constitutionally dangerous for several reasons:
-
Elections lose legitimacy: When a large segment of voters believes the process is biased, even technically “correct” results are treated as contested, weakening democratic legitimacy.
-
ECI’s own authority is weakened: A constitutional body under Article 324 relies heavily on moral and perceived independence; once that is eroded, the Commission’s ability to enforce MCC, supervise EVM‑VVPAT protocols, and oversee delimitation is severely compromised.
-
Cross‑party anxiety: The discomfort is not limited to one party; multiple opposition parties and even some independent observers have flagged a “credibility crisis,” indicating that the problem is structural, not just partisan.
What kind of response is needed?
Commentators and reform‑oriented analysts argue that:
-
Apologies and suspensions (as in the Kerala letter case) are insufficient; what is needed is structural reform of accountability mechanisms and more transparent communication with political parties and the public.
-
Institutional reforms suggested include clearer, time‑bound responses to objections, auditable EVM‑VVPAT protocols, and independent oversight of voter‑roll revisions, so that the ECI can demonstrate neutrality in practice, not just in doctrine.
In short, the crisis of trust in the ECI can no longer be ignored because the erosion is no longer anecdotal or episodic; it is reflected in hard data, repeated controversies, and a growing sense among voters and political actors that the body meant to safeguard fair elections is itself becoming a contested institution.
