India’s controversy over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has entered a significant new phase. The debate is no longer confined to political parties, civil society organisations and the Election Commission of India. Former judges of the Supreme Court and various High Courts have also entered the arena, expressing sharply divergent views on the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the legitimacy and implementation of SIR.
On October 8, 2026, a group of 42 former judges publicly defended the Election Commission and its Chief Election Commissioner, describing the criticism against them as a politically motivated campaign unsupported by adequate evidence. They maintained that electoral-roll revision was a lawful exercise and warned against attempts to undermine constitutional institutions.
On the other side of the debate, former Supreme Court and High Court judges have raised concerns about the SIR exercise, the powers being exercised by the Election Commission and the need to examine allegations concerning the Chief Election Commissioner. A panel of former judges, headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Madan B. Lokur, has been examining concerns about the process. Former Supreme Court Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia has also questioned whether citizenship-related determinations properly belong within the Election Commission’s remit and described reported disagreements within the Commission as a serious matter.
The emergence of two opposing judicial voices is a matter of public importance. Yet the central question is not which group contains more distinguished names, or which declaration sounds more authoritative. It is whether the electoral process is transparent, lawful, inclusive and accountable to the people whose democratic rights it exists to protect.
SIR: A Legitimate Exercise or a Threat to Voting Rights?
But the legitimacy of an objective cannot automatically validate every method adopted to achieve it. The crucial distinction is between correcting electoral rolls and creating conditions in which eligible citizens lose their right to vote because of administrative errors, inadequate documentation or an unnecessarily burdensome verification process.This is where the controversy surrounding SIR becomes particularly serious.
The Commission must be judged not merely by its stated intentions but by the fairness of its procedures, the reliability of its records and its willingness to correct mistakes.
The five-member commission constituted by the Lawyers’ Association for Constitution, chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B. Lokur, is intended to examine SIR’s constitutional validity, methodology and impact. Its members include former Supreme Court judge Justice A.K. Patnaik and former judges of different High Courts. The commission has announced plans for public hearings and field research, with a report expected in December 2026.
This initiative is important because it seeks to move the discussion beyond political accusations towards evidence-based examination. Its eventual findings deserve serious consideration, regardless of whether they support or contradict the claims of the Opposition.
The 42 Judges’ Defence: A Necessary Caution, But Not the Final Word
The former judges defending the CEC raise a concern: constitutional institutions should not be casually branded corrupt, compromised or partisan without evidence. Personal attacks and unsubstantiated allegations can weaken public confidence in institutions that are essential to democratic government.
The principle that criticism must be distinguished from denigration is sound. An election cannot be declared fraudulent simply because a political party loses. Nor can every administrative error establish a deliberate conspiracy to steal votes.
Political parties have an obligation to substantiate their allegations, produce documentary evidence and pursue appropriate legal remedies.However, the same standard of accountability must apply to constitutional authorities. Defending an institution against political attacks should not become a reason to dismiss legitimate questions about its conduct.
The strength of the Election Commission does not lie in its immunity from criticism. It lies in its ability to withstand scrutiny and demonstrate that its decisions are fair.
The 42 former judges have expressed their position in an open letter. Their collective professional experience gives their intervention significance, but it does not transform their assessment into a judicial verdict. They are retired judges expressing an opinion, not a court delivering an enforceable ruling.Equally, the criticism of the Commission cannot be dismissed merely because Opposition parties are raising it. A claim does not become false simply because it is politically convenient for its proponents, just as it does not become true merely because it is forcefully expressed.The appropriate response is to examine the underlying evidence.
Why the Objections Deserve Investigation
The concerns surrounding SIR extend beyond political speeches. Reports have emerged of disagreements within the Election Commission itself over decisions associated with the exercise. The Indian Express reported that the two other Election Commissioners had objected on record to decisions taken by the Chief Election Commissioner on multiple occasions. Subsequent legal challenges have sought scrutiny of the decision-making process and the conduct of the Commission. These reported disagreements do not, by themselves, prove misconduct. Nor do they establish that the Chief Election Commissioner acted illegally. But they raise questions that merit transparent answers.
Why objections were reportedly raised? What were the decisions in dispute? Were the relevant statutory procedures followed? Were dissenting views properly recorded and considered? What safeguards ensured that decisions affecting electoral rolls were not taken arbitrarily?These are questions of institutional governance, not merely political rhetoric. The reported objections make it particularly important that an independent examination should be allowed to proceed without prejudgment.
The Voter Must Remain at the Centre
The most troubling aspect of any largescale electoral revision is the possibility that an eligible citizen may be excluded through no fault of their own.A deceased person’s name remaining on a roll is an administrative error. An eligible living citizen’s name disappearing from it can be a direct injury to democratic participation.
The consequences are not equivalent.The burden of preventing exclusions must not fall entirely upon vulnerable citizens. The electoral administration must provide accessible verification procedures, clear notices, adequate time to respond and effective mechanisms for correcting errors.
The Danger of Turning Retired Judges into Rival Political Camps
The emergence of opposing statements from former judges also raises a broader concern about the public standing of the judiciary.Retired judges are citizens and are entitled to express their views on constitutional questions. Their experience can enrich public debate, expose neglected issues and encourage institutional accountability. There is no sound democratic reason to demand their silence merely because they once held judicial office.But when former judges issue competing declarations on a live political controversy, there is a danger that public discussion will become a contest of credentials rather than an examination of facts.
One group invokes the authority of judicial experience to defend the Election Commission. Another group is seeking to scrutinise the legality and consequences of SIR. Neither position should be accepted or rejected solely on the strength of the signatories’ former offices.
A retired judge’s letter is not a substitute for a judicial order. A panel’s inquiry is not automatically equivalent to a court’s ruling. And a large number of signatures cannot settle a disputed question of law or fact.The distinction is especially important in a democracy where public confidence in institutions depends on their demonstrated fairness rather than on appeals to prestige.
The Supreme Court Can’t Remain a Spectator to Unresolved Questions
Recent proceedings concerning challenges to the Chief Election Commissioner’s conduct illustrate that these issues are already entering the judicial arena. In a related matter, the Court sought responses from the relevant authorities while declining to grant immediate interim relief sought against the CEC.
The Court need not accept every allegation made by political parties. It must, however, ensure that serious, legally sustainable grievances receive meaningful consideration.
Accountability, not allegiance, must decide the controversy. The present division among former judges offers India an opportunity to reconsider how constitutional institutions should respond to public distrust.
The Election Commission should publish clear information about the revision process, the grounds for deletions, the number of objections received and the mechanisms through which affected citizens can seek restoration of their names. Appropriate privacy safeguards should protect personal information, while anonymised data and independently verifiable records should permit meaningful scrutiny.
The independent panel examining SIR should be allowed to collect evidence, hear affected citizens and publish its findings without political interference. Political parties, meanwhile, must provide verifiable evidence for claims of manipulation rather than rely exclusively on slogans.
Most importantly, the government and the Election Commission must recognise that public confidence cannot be restored through declarations of institutional virtue alone. It requires transparency, responsiveness and demonstrable fairness.The controversy is ultimately larger than the reputation of one Chief Election Commissioner or the competing opinions of retired judges. It concerns the fundamental relationship between the citizen and the state.
An election is not merely a mechanism through which political parties acquire power. It is the means by which citizens exercise political equality and hold their rulers accountable. If an eligible voter is unjustly excluded, the injury extends beyond that individual to the integrity of the democratic process itself.
The decisive question is not how many retired judges support or oppose the CEC. It is whether the Election Commission can demonstrate, through evidence and transparent procedures, that no eligible citizen has been unjustly deprived of the right to vote.In a democracy, the institution must command public confidence through its conduct, not demand it as a matter of faith.