Twenty-three Opposition parties, including the Congress, Trinamool Congress (TMC), and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), have written to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), alleging “brazenly biased conduct” by the Election Commission of India (ECI), particularly Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
In the letter dated June 28, the MPs accused the Chief Election Commissioner of extending “open, unabashed support” to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) during electoral processes and of influencing election outcomes.
The signatories to the letter include Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK), Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), Communist Party of India (CPI), Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)], Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) [CPI(ML)], Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK).
“The Commission has not been even-handed by choosing not to take action when the Model Code of Conduct is breached by the political party in power while targeting those in the Opposition,” the letter said.
The Opposition also alleged that the Commission remained silent when BJP leaders made “toxic and communal” statements that, according to them, violated the Model Code of Conduct.
The MPs said the letter was intended to strengthen public confidence in democratic institutions and place their concerns before the judiciary, which they described as the institution in which citizens continue to repose their “final trust".
They expressed their dissatisfaction over the constitution of the Election Commission, alleging that since the Modi government came into power in 2014, “almost every appointment made by the government has been of persons closely associated with it and seen to be doing the bidding of the government, brazenly, to manipulate the outcome of election results.”
According to the MPs, this has eroded the Commission’s independence and public confidence in the electoral process.
A major focus of the letter was the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, which the Opposition described as the Election Commission’s “unkindest cut".
The MPs alleged that the exercise, first undertaken in Bihar ahead of the Assembly elections, was conducted under the pretext of identifying illegal Bangladeshi immigrants despite there being no publicly available data to justify such concerns.
“Now that the Bihar Assembly elections are over, there is absolutely no data to suggest that such infiltration indeed took place, nor has the Election Commission made public any figures regarding Bangladeshis who allegedly acquired voting rights illegally,” the letter said.
The Opposition further alleged that the documentation requirements left lakhs of voters—particularly Dalits, Adivasis, minorities, migrant workers and economically weaker sections—at risk of disenfranchisement.
The MPs also referred to reports of Booth Level Officers (BLOs) allegedly filling forms on behalf of voters, forging signatures and uploading applications without consent, as well as instances where deceased persons were shown to have submitted forms.
According to the letter, changing instructions, administrative confusion and a compressed timeline further undermined the credibility of the exercise.
The MPs said that the process of SIR was carried out to favour the BJP.
The Opposition claimed the situation worsened during the West Bengal Assembly elections.
It alleged that the Election Commission focused disproportionately on West Bengal while not undertaking similar exercises in states such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Assam.
The MPs also questioned the deployment of around 2.4 lakh Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) personnel in West Bengal, noting that approximately 3.5 lakh personnel had been deployed across the country during the entire 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
The letter alleged that nearly 27 lakh names were removed from electoral rolls under a previously unused category termed “logical discrepancies".
Citing proceedings before tribunals constituted by the Supreme Court, the Opposition claimed that one tribunal headed by Justice TS Sivagnanam found that 1,717 of 1,777 challenged deletions were erroneous.
The MPs argued that if similar trends were reflected across other pending cases, more than 25 lakh voters may have been wrongly prevented from voting.
They further alleged that most deletions occurred in constituencies where the Trinamool Congress enjoyed strong support.
The Opposition also criticised the transfer of 483 officials, including the then Chief Secretary and Home Secretary of West Bengal, calling it an “unusual exercise”.
The letter alleged there was little evidence that the Election Commission had conducted any objective assessment to justify undertaking the SIR exercise before key state elections.
The MPs further claimed that even several Booth Level Officers in West Bengal were unable to cast their votes.
The Opposition also questioned the conduct of elections in Delhi, Haryana and Maharashtra, alleging manipulation and urging the Commission to adopt processes that inspire greater public confidence.
The MPs urged the Election Commission to suspend future SIR exercises and instead conduct any such revision only when Assembly elections are at least five years away.
They suggested that election officials should undertake door-to-door verification instead of relying on documentation-based procedures.
Besides electoral rolls, the Opposition also raised concerns over Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), saying public confidence in electronic voting requires wider discussion, including the possibility of restoring paper ballots where appropriate.
The letter also accused central agencies such as the CBI, Enforcement Directorate (ED) and National Investigation Agency (NIA) of selectively targeting Opposition leaders and being used to influence electoral outcomes.
The MPs said citizens continue to place their faith in the judiciary when all other institutions fail. They warned that continued inaction by constitutional institutions could weaken democratic governance. “We are not questioning the judiciary. In fact, we turn to the courts when every mechanism fails. When this too fails, it leaves open the question—who do we now turn to? We leave that question for you to ponder upon.”