Fears of a 'Fixed Match': Legal Experts Scrutinize Election Commission's Impartiality

Bengaluru, India – The Election Commission of India (ECI), the constitutional body entrusted with the monumental task of conducting free and fair elections, is facing a rising tide of criticism over its perceived impartiality, with prominent legal experts warning that its actions risk eroding public trust and turning the democratic process into a "fixed match." Speaking at a recent event, Supreme Court advocate Sanjay Hegde delivered a stark assessment, suggesting the institution's credibility, long considered the bedrock of India's democratic resilience, is in peril.

The concerns, articulated during the ‘Gauri Day 2025’ event in Bengaluru, center on two critical pillars of the electoral process: the independence of the Commission itself and the integrity of the electoral rolls it maintains. These issues, legal professionals argue, are not merely procedural but strike at the heart of constitutional guarantees and the very legitimacy of election outcomes.

The Appointment Controversy: A Question of Independence

A significant point of contention, highlighted by Mr. Hegde, is the current mechanism for appointing Election Commissioners. The process, which grants the executive a decisive role, has been a subject of intense legal and public debate. Critics argue that this system compromises the institutional autonomy necessary for the ECI to function as a neutral arbiter.

This criticism is sharpened by the government's recent legislative changes that effectively bypassed a Supreme Court recommendation. The Court had previously suggested a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to ensure a more balanced and independent appointment process. However, subsequent legislation replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister, thereby solidifying the government's control over the selection.

Mr. Hegde warned of the dangerous consequences of this structural deficit. “If the Commission is seen as partisan, the public will view elections as a fixed match,” he stated, articulating a fear that once the referee is perceived as biased, the integrity of the entire game is lost. This sentiment transforms a procedural debate into a fundamental question of democratic faith. For the legal community, this raises profound questions about the separation of powers and the durability of constitutional checks and balances designed to insulate such bodies from executive influence.

From Inclusion to Exclusion: The Mandate of Voter Roll Revision

Beyond the high-level appointments, concerns are escalating over the ECI's operational mandate, particularly its approach to revising electoral rolls. Panelists at the Bengaluru event pointed to a worrying shift in focus. “Instead of leaning towards voter inclusion, the Election Commission appeared more focused on exclusions that disproportionately affect minorities and the poor,” Mr. Hegde observed.

This critique was substantiated by specific examples, most notably a “special intensive revision” of voter lists in Bihar. Activists and civil society representatives flagged the notification for this exercise as "deeply flawed." Its stated purpose—to weed out "illegal immigrants"—was described as a mandate that extends far beyond the ECI's constitutional role of preparing and maintaining accurate electoral rolls. This conflation of immigration enforcement with electoral administration is seen as a dangerous overreach, potentially leading to the arbitrary and targeted disenfranchisement of legitimate citizens.

“An Election Commission bent on striking off names is bound to disenfranchise large sections of undocumented and vulnerable citizens,” Mr. Hegde added. This approach is particularly alarming for marginalized communities, including minorities, women, and migrant workers, who often face significant bureaucratic hurdles in proving their identity and residence. The panel also raised concerns about a system that seems to privilege certain groups, such as bureaucrats and sportspersons, while subjecting ordinary citizens to heightened scrutiny.

A Systemic Malaise: Symptoms of a Deeper Problem

Journalist Dinesh Amin Mattu, speaking at the same event, framed these controversies not as isolated incidents but as “symptoms” of a deeper, systemic malaise. He argued that while public and political debates have shifted from the reliability of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) to the integrity of voter rolls, the fundamental problem remains unaddressed: a lack of comprehensive structural reform within India's election system.

“The real issue is not just in Bihar or elsewhere; it is the larger disease that has crept into the system,” Mr. Mattu noted. This perspective calls for a legal analysis that looks beyond individual grievances to examine the systemic vulnerabilities that allow for potential manipulation and bias. It suggests that ad-hoc solutions are insufficient and that a foundational rethinking of electoral governance and accountability is necessary.

The panel discussion, which included prominent civil rights activists like Teesta Setalvad and Tara Rao, also connected the voter roll issue to the lingering uncertainty surrounding the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam. The NRC exercise, which left millions scrambling to prove their citizenship, has created a precedent and a climate of fear that activists believe is now influencing electoral processes in other states. The legal and human rights implications of using electoral machinery for purposes akin to citizenship verification are immense and remain a critical area of concern for constitutional experts.

For legal practitioners, this systemic critique underscores the need for robust legal challenges and sustained advocacy for reforms that bolster the ECI's independence, clarify its mandate, and establish transparent, rights-based procedures for voter registration and verification. The principle of "bail is the rule, jail is an exception," often cited in criminal law, finds a parallel here: voter inclusion should be the rule, and exclusion a carefully scrutinized exception, not the primary objective. The ongoing challenges to electoral integrity demand a vigilant and proactive response from the legal fraternity to safeguard the democratic foundations of the republic.