THE EROSION OF ELECTORAL INTEGRITY IN INDIA: APPOINTMENT CONTROVERSIES, DATA ANOMALIES, AND THE DECLINE OF THE TRUST IN THE ECI

Author: Sujen Rafik Shaikh, Siddharth College of Law, Mumbai

From Judicial Safeguard to Public Skepticism: How India’s Election Commission Faces a Crisis of Credibility

Abstract

The independence of the Election Commission of India (ECI), enshrined in Article 324 of the Constitution, has been increasingly contested, from the Supreme Court’s Anoop Baranwal Vs Union of India (2023) ruling to Rahul Gandhi’s objections in the February 2025 over the appointments of CEC Gyanesh Kumar and EC Vivek Joshi. This Article traces this evolution, analyzing the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which critics argue undermines judicial intent by restoring executive dominance. It further examines electoral irregularities in the 2024 Maharashtra and Haryana Assembly elections-marked by unprecedented voter turnout surges within four months-and a growing trust deficit fueled by opacity and allegations of bias. Supported by historical case laws like T.N. Seshan Vs Union of India (1995) and ongoing litigation challenging the 2023 Act, this study argues that these intertwined crises threaten India’s democratic credibility, necessitating urgent judicial and legislative intervention to restore public faith.

Introduction

India’s status as the world’s largest democracy rests on the integrity of its electoral processes, overseen by the Election Commission of India (ECI). Envisioned as an impartial arbiter under Article 324, the ECI’s autonomy has been a subject of debate since Independence, with its appointment process historically dominated by the executive. The Supreme Court’s landmark Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India (2023) decision aimed to rectify this by mandating a balanced selection committee, only for the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 to tilt the scales back toward governmental control. This shift sparked a political firestorm, culminating in Rahul Gandhi’s dissent in February 2025 over the appointments of Gyanesh Kumar and Vivek Joshi, amid allegations of executive overreach and partisan influence.

Parallel to this, the 2024 Assembly elections in Maharashtra and Haryana revealed troubling data anomalies—voter turnout spikes and voter list expansions unseen in the past five years—raising questions of manipulation. These issues, compounded by the ECI’s evasive responses and a trust deficit reflected in public discourse, signal a deeper crisis. This article explores the nexus of appointment disputes, electoral irregularities, and declining credibility, drawing on case laws like T.N. Seshan and ongoing legal challenges. It contends that without decisive action, the ECI risks eroding the democratic foundation it was designed to protect.

Evolution of the Appointment Issue

Historical Context and Anoop Baranwal Vs Union of India (2023)

The ECI’s appointment mechanism, rooted in Article 324(2), was intended to be formalized by parliamentary law—a promise unfulfilled for over seven decades. Until 2023, the President appointed the CEC and ECs on the Prime Minister’s advice, a practice critics decried as a relic of executive privilege. In 2015, Anoop Baranwal filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), arguing that this system violated the Constitution’s basic structure by compromising the ECI’s independence, essential for free and fair elections—a right implicit in Articles 14 and 19.

On March 2, 2023, a five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Justice K.M. Joseph, delivered a unanimous verdict in Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India. The Court ruled that executive monopoly over appointments posed a “devastating effect” on electoral integrity, mandating an interim committee of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition (LoP), and the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to advise the President. This echoed the judiciary’s protective stance in Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002), which emphasized transparency in elections. The Anoop Baranwal judgment was a clarion call for legislative action, critiquing decades of inaction and aligning with global norms for independent electoral bodies.

The 2023 Act: A Legislative Counterstrike

The government responded with the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, passed in December 2023 and assented to on December 29. Replacing the CJI with a Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, the Act ensured a 2:1 executive majority in the selection committee, comprising:
The Prime Minister (Chairperson)
The LoP in the Lok Sabha, and
A Union Cabinet Minister.

A Search Committee, headed by the Cabinet Secretary, shortlisted candidates—restricted to Secretary-level officials—further centralizing control. Critics, including the Congress and the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), condemned this as a rollback of Anoop Baranwal, arguing it restored executive dominance under a legislative veneer. Petitions challenging the Act’s constitutionality, filed by Dr. Jaya Thakur and ADR, remain pending as of March 6, 2025.

Rahul Gandhi’s Objection in 2025

The Act’s first major test came in February 2025 with the appointments of Gyanesh Kumar as CEC and Vivek Joshi as EC, following Rajiv Kumar’s retirement on February 18. On February 17, a selection meeting—attended by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and Rahul Gandhi—saw Gandhi submit a dissent note. He labeled the CJI’s exclusion a “clear and direct violation” of Anoop Baranwal, urging a delay until the Supreme Court ruled on the Act’s validity (set for February 19, 2025). Gandhi’s exit from the meeting underscored his view of the process as “partisan,” a sentiment he voiced in December 2024: “Two to one. I am going only to certify what Modiji and Amit Shahji say.” Despite his protest, the appointments proceeded, intensifying the debate.

Electoral Irregularities: Maharashtra and Haryana 2024

Maharashtra Assembly Elections (November 2024)

The Maharashtra elections on November 20, 2024, reported a final turnout of 66.05%, up from 58.22% at 5 p.m.—a 7.83% jump (approximately 76 lakh votes) in hours, finalized days later. Between July and November 2024, the voter list swelled by 47 lakhs, with 18 lakhs added in 78 constituencies in four months—a surge unseen in the past five years (e.g., 61.4% turnout in 2019, with no comparable late increases). The ADR flagged a discrepancy: votes counted (64,592,508) fell 33,912 short of polled plus postal votes (64,626,420). Congress alleged manipulation, noting that constituencies with significant turnout jumps favored the BJP-led Mahayuti coalition, while marginal increases benefited the opposition INDIA bloc.

Haryana Assembly Elections (October 2024)

Haryana’s October 5, 2024, elections saw turnout rise from 54.3% at 4 p.m. to 61.5% by day’s end—a 7.2% increase—settling at 67.9%. Some districts reported over 10% surges, and voter rolls grew notably in four months, contrasting with the stable 68% (2019) and 76.5% (2014) turnouts. Despite a near-tie in popular vote (BJP: 39.94%, Congress: 39.09%), the BJP secured 48 seats to Congress’s 37, prompting rigging claims. The ECI attributed late jumps to aggregation delays, but its refusal to release detailed booth-wise data fueled suspicion.

Historical Comparison

These anomalies deviate from the past five years’ trends—e.g., Maharashtra’s 2019 turnout stabilized at 61.4%, and Haryana’s 2019 figure held at 68% without late spikes. The rapid voter list growth (e.g., Maharashtra’s 47 lakh in four months vs. 17 lakhs over five years prior) and turnout volatility suggest irregularities, raising questions about EVM reliability and voter roll integrity.

Trust Deficit and ECI Credibility

Rajiv Kumar’s Controversial Tenure

Rajiv Kumar, CEC until February 2025, faced allegations of bias toward the BJP. Opposition queries on rigging, delayed turnout figures, and EVM concerns went unanswered; Kumar’s press conferences often featured poetic shayaris rather than substantive responses—a tactic critics deemed flippant and damaging to democratic trust. His refusal to address Maharashtra and Haryana anomalies, dismissing them as “normal” on December 24, 2024, without evidence, deepened skepticism.

Gyanesh Kumar’s Appointment

Gyanesh Kumar’s February 2025 appointment, amid claims of his proximity to Amit Shah, reinforced perceptions of executive capture. Critics argued this compromised transparency, with X posts labeling him a “loyalist,” further tarnishing India’s democratic image.

Public and Institutional Trust

Public faith in the ECI is waning, reflected in X sentiment (e.g., #ECIBias trended post-Maharashtra results), media critiques, and opposition narratives. The ECI’s rejection of ADR’s plea for Form 17C data—polling station-wise records—despite Supreme Court petitions in 2024, citing logistical constraints, has alienated voters. Former CEC S.Y. Quraishi warned in 2024 that such opacity risks “irreparable damage,” a view echoed by civil society. The trust deficit threatens electoral legitimacy, as citizens question whether the ECI serves democracy or political interests.

Case Laws and Ongoing Litigation

T. N. Seshan Vs Union of India (1995) [1] (Ahmadi, 1995)

In this case, the Supreme Court upheld CEC T.N. Seshan’s autonomy, ruling that executive interference undermined the ECI’s constitutional role. While affirming multi-member equality within the ECI, it left appointment processes undefined, a gap Anoop Baranwal later addressed. The principle of independence remains central to current debates.
Union of India Vs Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) [2] (M.B. Shah, 2002)

This ruling mandated voter transparency (e.g., candidate disclosures), reinforcing the ECI’s duty to ensure fair elections. Its ethos underpins critiques of 2024 data opacity, linking appointment autonomy to electoral trust.

Association for Democratic Reforms Vs Union of India (2024) [3] (Gavai, 2024)

During the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, ADR sought real-time turnout data, citing 5-6% discrepancies. The Supreme Court declined on May 24, 2024, prioritizing election continuity, but the case highlighted persistent transparency issues, relevant to Maharashtra and Haryana disputes.

Ongoing Challenge to the 2023 Act

Petitions by Dr. Jaya Thakur and ADR, filed post-2023 Act, argue it violates Anoop Baranwal by entrenching executive control. As of March 6, 2025, the Supreme Court’s February 19 hearing remains undecided, with Gandhi’s deferment plea tied to its outcome. A ruling could reinstate the CJI-inclusive model or prompt new legislation.

Key Issues and Implications

ECI Independence: The 2023 Act and Kumar’s /Gyanesh Kumar’s tenures challenge Anoop Baranwal’s safeguards, risking executive overreach.
Electoral Integrity: Maharashtra and Haryana’s 2024 anomalies-unmatched in five years-suggest manipulation, unaddressed by the ECI.
Trust Crisis: Opacity, evasiveness, and bias allegations erode public faith, threatening democratic legitimacy.
Judicial Oversight: The pending 2023 Act case test the judiciary’s role in balancing legislative and constitutional mandates.
Global Standing: India’s democratic reputation falters as electoral credibility wanes, drawing international scrutiny.

Conclusion

The journey from Anoop Baranwal to Gandhi’s 2025 dissent reveals a deepening crisis for India’s ECI. The 2023 Act’s executive tilt, 2024 electoral irregularities, and a trust deficit—exacerbated by Rajiv Kumar’s evasiveness and Gyanesh Kumar’s controversial appointment—signal a retreat from democratic ideals. Historical cases like T.N. Seshan and ongoing litigation offer pathways to reform, but as of March 6, 2025, the Supreme Court’s ruling remains a critical juncture. Without transparency and autonomy, the ECI risks becoming a shadow of its constitutional promise, imperiling India’s democratic legacy.

FAQS

What was Anoop Baranwal Case about?
The 2023 Supreme Court ruling mandated a committee (PM, LoP, CJI) for ECI appointments to curb executive control, aiming to ensure independence.

What did the 2023 Act change?
It replaced the CJI with a Cabinet Minister in the ECI selection committee, giving the executive a 2:1 majority, criticized as undermining Anoop Baranwal.

Why did Rahul Gandhi object in 2025?
Gandhi protested the 2025 appointments of Gyanesh Kumar and Vivek Joshi, calling the process “partisan” due to the 2023 Act’s executive bias.

What irregularities occurred in 2024 elections?
Maharashtra and Haryana saw turnout jumps (7-10%) and voter list growth (e.g., 47 lakhs in Maharashtra) within four months, unlike the stable last five years.

How has the ECI responded?
The ECI dismissed anomalies as “normal” but offered no detailed data, with ex-CEC Rajiv Kumar dodging questions using shayaris.

Why is trust in the ECI declining?
Opacity, unanswered rigging claims, and perceived bias (e.g., Gyanesh Kumar’s Shah ties) have fueled public and opposition distrust.

What’s the ongoing legal challenge?
Petitions against the 2023 Act, claiming it violates Anoop Baranwal, are pending in the Supreme Court as of March 6, 2025.

What are key related case laws?
T.N. Seshan (1995): Upheld CEC autonomy.
ADR (2002): Mandated transparency.
ADR (2024): Sought turnout data, denied by the Court.

How do 2024 anomalies differ from past trends?
Unlike steady turnouts (e.g., 61.4% in Maharashtra 2019), 2024 saw rapid voter increases and late surges, raising manipulation fears.

Why is ECI independence vital?
It ensures fair elections, prevents political interference, and upholds democratic trust, per Article 324.
References
Ahmadi, A. M. (1995, July 14). indiankanoon.org. Retrieved from indiankanoon.org: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1890680/
Gavai, B. (2024, February 15). indiankanoon.org. Retrieved from indiankanoon.org: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121499464/
M.B. Shah, B. P. (2002, may 02). indiankanoon.org. Retrieved from indiankanoon.org: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/57050385/