Former judges extend support to Election Commission amid SIR controversy
A group of 42 retired judges has come out in support of the Election Commission of India (ECI), defending its handling of electoral rolls and backing the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise amid criticism from Opposition parties.
In an open letter addressed to the people of India on Thursday, the former judges said they were not representing any political party but believed it was necessary to respond to what they viewed as growing attacks on constitutional institutions.
Among the signatories were former Jammu and Kashmir and Delhi High Court Chief Justice B. C. Patel, former Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, and former Supreme Court judges Hemant Gupta and Pankaj Mittal.
The letter comes against the backdrop of sustained criticism from INDIA bloc leaders over Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the SIR process. Opposition parties have accused the poll panel of manipulating electoral rolls in favour of the BJP and have called for Kumar’s resignation. Both the BJP and the ECI have rejected the allegations.
The retired judges argued that criticism of public institutions is a legitimate part of democracy, but said it should not descend into personal attacks or attempts to undermine their credibility. They expressed concern that constitutional bodies, including the Election Commission, the judiciary and statutory agencies, were facing sustained public criticism.
The letter described the campaign against these institutions as politically motivated and warned that such attacks could weaken public confidence in democratic processes.
On the SIR exercise, the signatories maintained that electoral laws empower the ECI to revise voter lists. They also pointed out that revisions have been undertaken at different times since India’s first general elections, with the last nationwide exercise of this kind taking place roughly two decades ago.
The judges also questioned allegations of widespread vote manipulation, arguing that such claims should be supported by evidence and pursued through appropriate legal channels rather than being confined to public statements and press conferences.
The letter adds another dimension to the ongoing political debate over electoral roll revisions, the independence of the Election Commission and the accountability of constitutional institutions.