‘Vote Theft’ Allegations Trigger Concern as 42 Former Judges Issue Open Letter

Forty-two former judges have entered the heated debate over the Election Commission’s functioning and the ongoing voter-list revision, warning.

That repeated allegations against constitutional institutions could weaken public faith in India’s democratic system. In a strongly worded open letter, the retired judges expressed concern over what they described as a sustained campaign against the Election Commission, judiciary and other constitutional and statutory bodies. They questioned allegations of “vote theft” that, they said, were being made without supporting evidence.

“We write because, in moments like these, silence is no longer a neutral choice. Our concern is grave. India’s constitutional bodies are under sustained attack,” the letter said.

The judges said the Election Commission was at the centre of the controversy, while the higher judiciary and statutory agencies had also come under attack.

According to the signatories, criticism of institutions is part of a democracy, but repeatedly portraying constitutional authorities as “thieves” or “compromised” could have consequences beyond political debate.

“This appears to be a calculated campaign driven by vested political interests, with little regard for the potentially devastating consequences of destabilising the world’s largest democracy,” they said.

‘WHEN THE BALLOT LOSES MEANING, THE STREET GAINS IT’

The former judges warned that sustained attacks on electoral institutions could eventually damage public confidence in the ballot.

“Trust is the currency of democracy,” they said, adding that when the “ballot loses meaning, the street gains it”.

“Unrest begins with a narrative. Anarchic and fringe elements then occupy the vacuum. Some are homegrown. Some take their cues from beyond our borders,” the letter said.

The intervention comes as Opposition parties continue their protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The former judges defended SIR, describing it as a legally established exercise intended to ensure that voter lists remain accurate and free of irregularities.

“Criticism of institutions is a democratic right. Denigration is not,” they said.

‘VOTE THEFT’ CLAIMS UNDER SCRUTINY

The judges also took aim at the manner in which allegations of electoral wrongdoing have been raised.

They argued that claims of “vote theft” were being made at press conferences rather than through sworn declarations before courts. They questioned why electronic voting machines were criticised after electoral defeats, while victories achieved through the same system were not similarly challenged.

The letter also criticised repeated litigation by activist groups, alleging that petitions were sometimes filed without adequate evidence and that courts faced criticism when their judgments did not favour those bringing the cases.

The signatories said the courtroom should remain a forum for testing claims through evidence rather than becoming an extension of political battles.

42 FORMER JUDGES SIGN LETTER

The group includes former Supreme Court judges, former Chief Justices of high courts and other retired members of the judiciary. Former Supreme Court judges Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Pankaj Mittal are among those who signed the letter.

Their intervention comes amid a wider controversy over the SIR exercise, which has resulted in large-scale deletions from electoral rolls and triggered questions about the functioning of the Election Commission.

However, judicial views on the issue have not been uniform.

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman recently raised concerns over the Election Commission’s functioning and said the right to vote was “at great peril”. He also called for Supreme Court intervention, questioning how the poll panel was handling the voter-roll revision.

” You cannot have an Election Commission which functions or malfunctions like this,” Nariman said.

He also referred to reports of around 90 lakh voters being disenfranchised in West Bengal, arguing that the scale of the deletions should have prompted greater judicial scrutiny.

Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has separately said that any process that takes away the voting rights of a large number of citizens would amount to “a negation of the constitutional order”.

The contrasting views reflect the growing legal and institutional debate over the Election Commission, SIR and the question of how allegations concerning electoral rolls should be investigated.

As political protests continue, the dispute has moved beyond electoral administration to a larger question: how can allegations of irregularities be examined without undermining public confidence in the institutions responsible for conducting elections?