Forty-two former judges have come out in defence of the Election Commission of India (ECI) amid intensifying political protests over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and demands for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation.
In an open letter reported on October 8, the former judges expressed “grave” concern over what they described as a sustained campaign against constitutional institutions, questioning allegations of “vote theft” that they said were not supported by evidence.
They argued that SIR is a legally established exercise intended to ensure accurate electoral rolls and urged political parties to pursue grievances through constitutional and legal mechanisms. The intervention comes as Opposition parties, led by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, continue protests in New Delhi, alleging irregularities in the voter-list revision and questioning the ECI’s independence.
On October 7, Gandhi and several Opposition lawmakers were detained during a protest demanding Kumar’s resignation. The ECI and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have denied allegations of wrongdoing, while the ECI has maintained that decisions relating to SIR were taken unanimously by the full Commission.
The Letter
The 42 signatories, including former Supreme Court judges Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Pankaj Mittal, as well as former Chief Justices of High Courts, criticised the language being used against constitutional authorities.
The former judges objected to the ECI and its officials being labelled “thieves” and “compromised”, warning that such rhetoric could weaken public confidence in institutions that are central to the electoral process. “Criticism of institutions is a democratic right. Denigration is not,” they said. They also described the campaign as a “calculated campaign driven by vested political interests”, arguing that attempts to delegitimise elections without substantiated evidence could have consequences beyond the immediate political dispute.
The judges said electoral complaints should be backed by evidence and placed before courts or other established mechanisms rather than being settled through public accusations. Their intervention, however, does not itself resolve the questions being raised about SIR. It adds one influential institutional voice to an already contested debate involving politicians, election officials, lawyers and former members of the judiciary.
The SIR Dispute
The controversy has deepened following reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally raised objections on at least 14 occasions over 10 months to decisions concerning electoral-roll management, voter registration, database access and changes involving Form 6.
The Indian Express reported that some of the objections concerned decisions the two commissioners said had been taken without their knowledge or approval. The findings intensified Opposition criticism and became a key part of the political campaign against Kumar. The ECI, however, rejected the suggestion that the reports demonstrated a split within the three-member Commission.
In a statement reported by The Times of India, the poll body said the issues raised by Sandhu and Joshi were “operational queries, inputs and suggestions” at the draft stage and part of normal administrative decision-making. It maintained that all decisions taken by the Commission over the past year, including those concerning SIR, were the result of “unanimous decisions of the full commission”.
Meanwhile, the political confrontation has moved onto the streets. Reuters reported that Rahul Gandhi and other Opposition lawmakers were detained on October 7 for the third time in two days while protesting against Kumar and the voter-list revision. The ECI and BJP have denied allegations of wrongdoing, while Kumar himself has not publicly commented on the voter-list allegations.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
At The Logical Indian, we believe that electoral institutions must be open to scrutiny, just as political parties and governments must be held accountable for the claims they make about them.
The concerns surrounding SIR, voter deletions, internal objections and electoral procedures deserve transparent answers, accessible evidence and, where necessary, independent judicial examination. At the same time, allegations as serious as “vote theft” should not become substitutes for proof, just as institutional authority should not become a substitute for transparency.
The intervention by 42 former judges is therefore significant not because it ends the dispute, but because it highlights the responsibility on all sides to protect public trust: political parties must substantiate their allegations, institutions must explain consequential decisions clearly, and citizens must be able to distinguish verified facts from political claims.
Democracy is strengthened when disagreement produces greater transparency rather than deeper hostility. As this debate continues, how can India ensure that legitimate scrutiny of its electoral institutions remains both fearless and evidence-based?
