13

Oct

Bihar’s Ballot Crucible: Is the Election Commission Transforming?

image

A person wearing glasses and a suit AI-generated content may be incorrect.Is Bihar changing the Election Commission—or is the Election Commission changing itself? The question looms large as the 2025 Bihar Assembly polls unfold. The EC today appears gentler, more tolerant, and less combative in political matters—an area it was never meant to indulge in.

This shift has not come overnight. For years, the Commission projected a more aggressive image. Its chiefs—Rajeev Kumar or Gyanesh Kumar—often spoke in tones resembling politicians, sometimes dismissing the Opposition and even challenging the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) to file affidavits to prove allegations. Yet, even with his softer stance, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar remains firm on polling-day voter numbers. He has rejected suggestions that variations in voter turnout figures were unnatural, agreeing only to ensure that Form 17—signed by presiding officers and sealed with ballot boxes—be made available for verification.

This transformation reflects the broader political climate. Parliament itself has become combative, with 146 MPs suspended in one day in 2024 and the expulsion of a Congress leader following a Gujarat court conviction. That mood perhaps influenced the EC’s earlier tenor. When the LoP alleged manipulation in the 2024 general election vote counts, the CEC’s curt response—demanding an affidavit and refusing further comment—appeared dismissive of an office that enjoys the rank of a cabinet minister.

The LoP did not retreat. Instead, he launched a 4,000-km PadYatra across India in 2024, followed by another 1,300-km march through Bihar, demanding rectification of voter rolls under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process. His agitation and public rallies forced the EC to restore most of the 65 lakh deleted names, leaving around 3.36 lakh still struck off.

 

The article examines the evolving role of the Election Commission (EC) amid the 2025 Bihar Assembly elections. Once perceived as combative, the EC—under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar—now appears more restrained and accountable. This shift follows intense public and political pressure, particularly from the Leader of the Opposition, whose padyatras highlighted mass voter deletions under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
Monday Musing
By Shivaji Sarkar
The controversy raised questions about the EC’s inconsistent stance on Aadhaar and voter identity. While the Supreme Court upheld EC autonomy, it stressed accountability. Bihar’s public sentiment—concerned with unemployment, migration, and “vote chori”—has forced institutional introspection. The EC’s softened tone suggests a recognition that credibility relies on public trust. Bihar may now become a testing ground for broader electoral reforms, signaling a potential shift toward transparency and democratic maturity in India.

 

The controversy over the SIR raises crucial questions. Why did the EC not carry out its usual annual revision between October and December 2024? Why was a special drive launched abruptly in June 2025—barely four months before polling—under the pretext of removing “intruders”? And how many such “intruders” were actually found? The CEC, at his October 6 press conference announcing Bihar poll dates, evaded direct questions on these points and even avoided clarifying the use of the term ghuspaithiye (illegal entrants).

The Supreme Court, while refraining from interfering with the EC’s autonomy, did question the process—particularly the use of Aadhaar as part of voter verification. The CEC himself stated that Aadhaar is “neither an identity proof, nor a residence proof, nor a citizenship proof.” If so, why does the government machinery—from banks to official agencies—insist on it as a universal document? And if the EC’s position is correct, why did it later accept the Supreme Court’s suggestion to allow Aadhaar as an identity document for the Bihar SIR?

The confusion underscores a deeper institutional tension. Rarely has an organization displayed such contradictory positions in so short a time. The CEC’s documents at his July 6, 2025 press conference showed that, following the Supreme Court’s nudge, the number of deleted voters was reduced to 3.36 lakh. But on October 8, the CEC told the Court that Aadhaar had indeed been accepted as ID proof—contradicting earlier assertions.

At least one thing has changed: the EC’s tone. The October 6 press conference displayed a restraint absent in recent years. To pointed questions about Rahul Gandhi’s “vote chori” (vote theft) allegations and doubts over EC’s credibility, Gyanesh Kumar responded calmly: “The political process has the freedom to raise questions.” It was a rare moment of institutional composure—possibly influenced by the massive public response to the Opposition’s rallies in Bihar.

Perhaps the EC has realised that confrontation with political voices erodes its credibility. The public mood—evident in Bihar’s rallies—may have compelled the Commission to recalibrate its approach. An official, after all, is expected to act impartially and with respect toward all political stakeholders.

Still, constitutional independence cannot mean acting beyond limits. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned institutions—from the EC to the Archaeological Survey of India—that autonomy must coexist with accountability. The recent legal provision protecting election commissioners from removal except by presidential reference has also raised eyebrows for being inconsistent with democratic norms.

Popular sentiment often corrects institutional aberrations. Silence from a constitutional body cannot be mistaken for acceptance; nor can it ignore public trust. The EC’s newfound restraint may, therefore, be an acknowledgment that the people remain the ultimate sovereigns in a democracy.

Yet, important questions remain. Should the EC remain silent on the so-called rewri culture—the spree of cash transfers and freebies announced by governments just before elections? Should it not act to ensure a level playing field when such tactics blur the line between welfare and inducement?

Meanwhile, Bihar’s ground realities cannot be overlooked. According to a State Vibe survey conducted in September 2025, unemployment and migration are the top voter concerns, cited by 38.4 percent of respondents. Education and health, particularly among women, follow closely. Notably, one-third of respondents (33.4 percent) identified “vote chori” fears as a key issue—suggesting that the Opposition’s campaign against the SIR struck a chord with the electorate.

Bihar thus stands at a crossroads. A state long plagued by joblessness, outmigration, and poverty could become the crucible for a national debate on electoral transparency and institutional accountability. The EC’s recent evolution—from defiance to dialogue, from rigidity to restraint—may signal a maturing democracy responding to citizen pressure rather than political diktat.

If Bihar’s electoral churn forces the EC to become more open, fair, and self-correcting, it will not merely change one election—it could redefine the conduct of elections in India. Perhaps the winds of reform are indeed blowing from Bihar. The nation may have to begin its change game right here. The Bihar process may be a turning point. A state plagued by unemployment, migration, and poverty could now become the crucible for electoral reforms the nation has long awaited.

Perhaps Bihar marks the beginning of long-overdue reforms. All eyes are on the state. The country may have to start its change game here. (A senior journalist and media activist, Prof Shivaji Sarkar specialises in financial reporting)

**************

  • Share:

About Us

We must explain to you how all seds this mistakens idea off denouncing pleasures and praising pain was born and I will give you a completed accounts..

Contact Us

Contact Info

  • 70, Gyan Khand- 4, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh.
  • +91-9810533682
  • info@mediamap.co.in
  • Week Days: 09.00 to 18.00 Sunday: Closed