The future of the world’s largest democracy

India’s Chief Election Commissioner is at the centre of a major political controversy. This, however, is not the first time. Anyone who lived through Indian politics in the 1990s cannot forget T. N. Seshan. When he took charge as Chief Election Commissioner in December 1990, few could have imagined the political firestorm his sweeping electoral reforms would unleash.

Before the Seshan era, the Election Commission of India– despite being a constitutional body – was largely seen as a quiet administrative institution responsible merely for conducting elections, regardless of how messy or corrupt the politics surrounding it might be. The Model Code of Conduct, widely followed today, remained largely dormant and innocuous, while electoral malpractices continued to undermine the integrity of the electoral process.

T. N. Seshan vis-à-vis Gyanesh Kumar
Upon taking charge as Chief Election Commissioner, T. N. Seshan took his constitutional responsibilities seriously and set out to cleanse the Indian electoral system through a series of reforms. His initiatives, including the introduction of voter identity cards, were aimed at curbing electoral malpractices by political parties and candidates. His assertive interpretation of the Election Commission’s constitutional mandate brought him into conflict with several political parties, including the ruling party.

The current Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar, is also at the centre of a major political storm. However, there is a crucial difference between the controversies surrounding the Election Commission in the 1990s and those unfolding today: the Chief Election Commissioner himself is now under scrutiny, with questions being raised about whether his actions are undermining the transparency, independence and credibility of the electoral process. At the heart of the controversy is the large-scale deletion of names from electoral rolls following the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise across the country.

Reports have also emerged of disagreements between Gyanesh Kumar and his fellow Election Commissioners over the SIR process, which critics say has put millions of eligible voters at risk of disenfranchisement. India’s opposition parties, which are seeking the Chief Election Commissioner’s removal, allege that deleting eligible citizens from electoral rolls amounts to a denial of their democratic right to vote and serves the political interests of the ruling alliance. This raises serious concerns about the state of India’s electoral process and what it reveals about the health of its democracy.

The meticulous Indian elections
Since the Seshan era, the Election Commission of India has established robust mechanisms to ensure that every eligible voter has a fair opportunity to exercise their franchise. From verifying voter identities and preventing impersonation to providing assistance to those who need it, the polling process is underpinned by an elaborate system of safeguards.

If a voter arrives at a polling station and discovers that someone has already voted in their name, the system does not leave the genuine voter without a remedy. They can cast a vote using a tendered ballot. Similarly, the challenge vote procedure provides a mechanism for addressing situations in which the identity of a person seeking to vote is questioned at the polling station. The introduction of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) machines, which allow voters to verify the candidate and symbol recorded by the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM), marked a significant step towards enhancing transparency in the electoral process. Webcasting and live monitoring of polling stations have strengthened real-time oversight, while applications such as the Poll Manager app have enabled election officials to systematically record and communicate information throughout the polling process.

Special provisions are also in place to assist blind and infirm voters, recognising that the right to vote must not depend on a person’s physical ability to navigate the polling process. The provision for home voting is another important measure, allowing eligible senior citizens to cast their votes from home, with polling officials visiting them. Polling stations have also become more voter-friendly, with improved accessibility and basic amenities such as drinking water.

Despite all these meticulous safeguards, what is the point of getting every detail right on polling day if the electoral roll itself has been compromised? There is little value in meticulously managing polling booths if eligible voters have already been removed from the electoral rolls through an SIR conducted without due care and diligence or, worse, as part of a partisan political agenda. The nitty-gritty of polling day matters only when the larger constitutional imperative of ensuring free and fair periodic elections is upheld and every eligible citizen’s right to vote is protected. After all, no amount of precision on polling day can compensate for the wrongful exclusion of eligible citizens from the electoral rolls.

Procedural vs. substantive democracy
One of the fundamental lessons taught in political science classrooms is the distinction between procedural and substantive democracy. Procedural democracy focuses on holding free, fair, and periodic elections. Substantive democracy, however, goes beyond the ballot box to ask a more fundamental question: How much equality, justice, and meaningful opportunity do people actually experience in society? It examines the extent to which citizens can exercise their rights, enjoy equal treatment, access justice, and participate meaningfully in a democratic society.

Since independence, India has been regarded as a relatively robust procedural democracy, earning it the distinction of being the world’s largest democracy. Compared with many of its neighbours and other countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America that gained independence around the same period, India has sustained a relatively stable electoral process, while several of these countries have experienced military rule, authoritarianism or prolonged political instability. The Indian story, however, looks markedly different when we move beyond elections to assess democracy from a substantive perspective.

Even after more than seven decades of independence, India has yet to fully realise the ideals of substantive democracy. Millions continue to live in poverty and face oppression, unable to fully enjoy the constitutional promise of equal rights and socio-economic justice.

India’s democratic record on the substantive front has come under growing international scrutiny in recent years. Major global assessments – including the V-Dem Democracy Report, Freedom House’s Freedom in the World and the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index – have highlighted concerns over declining media and academic freedoms, restrictions on civil liberties and the treatment of religious minorities. V-Dem’s latest assessment classifies India as an “electoral autocracy”, pointing to a sustained erosion of freedom of expression and media independence, while Freedom House continues to classify the country as “Partly Free”. More recently, UN Special Rapporteurs have raised concerns about large-scale deletions from electoral rolls under the SIR process, particularly regarding the reported implications for minority communities.

The controversies surrounding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar strike at the very pillars of Indian democracy, raising an unsettling question: while substantive democracy has always remained an unfulfilled promise, are even its procedural foundations, elections themselves, now beginning to crumble?