Former Bureaucrats Rally Behind Election Commission Amid Criticism

Support for the Election Commission

New Delhi: A group of 124 former officers from IAS, IFS, IPS, and related services have come forward to staunchly defend the Election Commission (EC) and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. They argue that a system cannot be deemed fair when it is labeled as rigged only when one loses.

In an open letter addressed to the citizens of India, these former officials emphasized that political affiliations should not be the basis for evaluating institutions.

They pointed out that under the same commission, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) faced defeats in Assembly elections across Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Telangana, Jharkhand, and Jammu and Kashmir, and in 2024, lost its majority in the Lok Sabha.

The letter stated, “The winners raised no complaint. A system cannot be honest when you win and rigged when you lose.”

The signatories, which include former secretaries to the government, ambassadors, police chiefs, and chief secretaries, acknowledged that while errors should be rectified, the legitimacy of the SIR process is established.

They described the SIR as a necessary cleanup operation that purges voter lists of ineligible individuals, which may cause some discomfort but is essential for enhancing the integrity of India's democracy.

Notable signatories include former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal, and former IAS officers R D Kapur, Samirendra Chatterjee, Gopal Krishna, Vivek Bhardwaj, and Navneet Sehgal, among others.

The officers highlighted the significant advancements in India's electoral system, which now includes multiple safeguards such as polling agents, EVM sealing, strong-room security, and VVPAT verification, contrasting it with past practices of booth capturing and electoral violence.

They referenced the Bihar Assembly elections from the previous year, which saw no need for re-polling and achieved the highest voter turnout since 1951.

Reaffirming the independence of the EC, the officers pointed out its multi-member structure and institutional protections.

They stated, “Questioning is every citizen's right. Proving is the accuser's duty.”

Regarding the SIR, they emphasized its importance in maintaining clean electoral rolls, noting the identification of approximately 22 lakh deceased voters and seven lakh duplicate entries in Bihar, alongside the addition of around 21.5 lakh new voters.

They argued, “An uncleaned roll does not protect the voter. It protects the fraudster.”

The letter also mentioned the safeguards in place during the SIR process, including notices, hearings, appeals, and the involvement of political parties' agents.

The Supreme Court has reviewed the SIR process, recommended additional safeguards, and upheld the EC's authority to conduct it.

In a direct message to those questioning election outcomes, the officers remarked, “If the system you call rigged is the same one that handed you your victories, ask yourself whether it is the system you doubt, or only the result.”

The officers, who have previously prepared voter lists and supervised vote counting, expressed their non-partisan stance, stating, “We write because one word, ‘rigged’, is now thrown at our elections without evidence, and every repetition wounds democratic trust that belongs to all of us.”

They recalled a time when booth capturing was rampant, leading Parliament to criminalize it in 1989, emphasizing that when violence prevails, democracy suffers.

They explained that every candidate's agent monitors each booth and retains a signed count of the votes cast, with machines sealed and secured in strongrooms under the watch of candidates.

They also noted that paper slips are matched with machine counts, a safeguard upheld by the Supreme Court in 2024, and highlighted that any rigging would require the complicity of numerous officials across various political parties.

The officers concluded that no such conspiracy has ever been substantiated, reiterating that the EC was designed as a multi-member body to prevent any single individual from wielding excessive power.

They stated, “Three Commissioners weigh every question from different angles, and that is not something unforeseen.”

The former officials maintained that the SIR is not a tool for exclusion, clarifying that the draft roll is provisional and that no name is removed without prior notice and a hearing, with two levels of appeal available.

They cautioned that democracies are undermined by those who propagate unfounded political narratives that incite unrest among citizens, suggesting that such actions are attempts to regain relevance after electoral defeat.