The CEC, the Voter List Controversy and a Government That Seems Afraid of Questions
Moajungshi Menon
I always believed India was the world’s largest democracy where citizens could question those in power without fear of being arrested. The events unfolding in Delhi have forced me to question that belief. When students, lawyers, political leaders and ordinary citizens face detention for demanding accountability from the Chief Election Commissioner, we must ask whether the democratic freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution are being protected or gradually pushed aside.
Delhi has witnessed mass detentions, heavy security deployment, restrictions on public movement and disruptions to transport and internet services during protest demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The demonstrations concern allegations of irregularities in the revision of electoral rolls. The government and the Election Commission must answer these allegations, not allow the confrontation to overshadow them.
Are we witnessing an undeclared Emergency? Have we reached a point where questioning those in power is treated as an offence? India has not formally declared an Emergency but that does not mean we should ignore actions that threaten the spirit of democracy.
Why Is the Government Protecting the CEC?
This is the central question. If the government has had no role in any wrongdoing why not allow peaceful protests and support an impartial investigation into the allegations surrounding the voter lists? If the electoral process has been conducted properly, a credible investigation should establish that. If irregularities have occurred those responsible must be held accountable. Instead, the government’s response risks creating the impression that protecting the CEC has become more important than addressing public concerns.
The government appears to be treating a demand for accountability as a challenge to its authority. That is precisely the problem. The Central Government must understand that protecting the independence of the Election Commission does not mean shielding its chief from criticism. An independent constitutional institution must be capable of facing scrutiny without requiring the machinery of government to protect it from public pressure. The government may claim that the Election Commission is independent and that it has nothing to do with the alleged irregularities. But declarations of innocence cannot replace an impartial investigation. If there is nothing to hide, transparency should be the government’s strongest defence.
Why should citizens be expected to trust an electoral process without being allowed to question it freely? The government must answer the allegations, ensure that genuine voters are not marginalized and support a credible examination of the evidence. The issue is not whether the CEC should be condemned before an investigation but the issue is whether the government is willing to allow that investigation to take place without political interference.
Delhi Turned into a Fortress
Reports on the October 10 protest described a security plan involving approximately 35,000 police personnel. Thousands of people were detained, while restrictions affected public movement, metro services and mobile internet in parts of the capital were closed. The Supreme Couty Bar Association and The Delhi High Court Bar Association also condemned the detention of lawyers and alleged excessive use of force by the police.
Why must a peaceful protest trigger such an extraordinary response? If the government believes the protesters are wrong, it should answer their allegations with evidence. If it believes the Election Commission has acted correctly, it should defend its position through facts, transparency and constitutional principles.
Instead, the events in Delhi present a disturbing picture. People seeking to express their grievances found themselves confronting a vast security operation. Is this how a confident democracy responds to criticism? The scale of the response raises serious questions about whether the government is becoming increasingly uncomfortable with dissent. The police have a duty to maintain public order. Nobody disputes that. But maintaining public order is not the same as suppressing public opinion. Public safety cannot become an excuse to prevent citizens from exercising their constitutional rights. A government that fears peaceful protesters should examine its own conduct before questioning the motives of its citizens.
Detaining CJP Leaders
Inside an Aircraft
One of the most disturbing incidents involved Cockroach Janta Party leaders Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka. Reports said police detained the three leaders inside their aircraft after they landed at Delhi airport. They were subsequently taken to undisclosed locations. Think about what that means for an ordinary citizen. A person boards a flight, travels to the national capital and arrives intending to participate in a peaceful protest. Instead of being allowed to proceed normally that person is detained on the aircraft.
Whatever justification the authorities offer such an incident demands a clear explanation. What legal grounds supported the detention? Were the detainees informed of the reasons? Were their families and legal representatives able to establish their whereabouts? These are basic questions in a constitutional democracy.
Opposition politicians including Mamata Banerjee, Arvind Kejriwal and Pinarayi Vijayan (they are all former Chief Ministers), were also among those detained during the crackdown. Lawyers, activists and journalists faced detention as well. When politicians, students, lawyers and ordinary citizens find themselves caught in a sweeping security operation, the government cannot expect the public to remain silent. A democracy must never create the impression that exercising one’s rights requires permission from those in power.
Are We Moving Towards a Democratic Dictatorship?
Dictatorship does not always begin with the abolition of elections or the formal suspension of a constitution. Sometimes democratic institutions continue to exist while the space for dissent gradually shrinks. Elections are held, political parties operate and constitutional offices remain in place, yet citizens may increasingly find it difficult to challenge those in power without facing pressure, restrictions or intimidation.
A defining characteristic of dictatorship is the concentration of power, the weakening of independent institutions, when journalists are silenced, critical voices are sidelined and sections of the media appear more interested in protecting those in power than questioning them, the suppression of dissent and the use of state machinery to silence political opposition. In a democracy the government is accountable to the people. Under authoritarian rule the government increasingly expects the people to submit to its authority without questioning its decisions.
The developments reported in Delhi raise concerns that deserve serious examination. Mass detentions during protests, extensive security restrictions and unanswered questions about the treatment of demonstrators risk creating an atmosphere in which citizens become afraid to exercise their democratic rights. The controversy surrounding the revision of electoral rolls adds another layer of concern because public confidence in free and fair elections is essential to representative government.
These events do not, by themselves, establish that India has become a dictatorship. However, they raise legitimate questions about whether democratic institutions are functioning with sufficient independence and whether the government’s response to criticism respects constitutional freedoms. Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, subject to lawful restrictions. These protections mean little if citizens begin to fear detention simply for questioning those in power.
The danger begins when a government starts treating criticism as disloyalty, dissent as a threat and accountability as an attack on its authority. A government may possess an electoral mandate but that mandate does not give it unlimited authority. The people elect their representatives to govern within the Constitution not to stand above it. If democratic institutions are to retain public confidence, the government must demonstrate through its actions that criticism is not a crime and accountability is not an act of hostility.
A country does not need to formally declare a dictatorship for its citizens to become concerned about the erosion of democratic freedoms. The real warning sign is when the institutions of democracy remain standing but the freedom to question those in power begins to disappear.
The Government Must Answer the People
The Central Government cannot simply wash its hands of this controversy. Delhi Police functions under the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, making the Centre directly accountable for the police administration’s response. It must explain the scale of the security arrangements, the grounds for the detentions and the restrictions imposed during the protests.
The Election Commission, meanwhile must address credible allegations about electoral rolls through transparent procedures. Any eligible voter wrongly removed from the rolls must have an effective means of correction. Any proven wrongdoing must be investigated, and those responsible must face the consequences.
These are not unreasonable demands. They are basic expectations in a constitutional democracy. The government should not interpret every protest as an attempt to destabilise the country. Nor should citizens assume that every allegation is automatically true. What India needs is an independent process that establishes the facts, protects the citizens’ rights and holds every responsible authority accountable.
India Belongs to Its People
I refuse to believe that democracy means voting once every few years and remaining silent in between. Elections matter but so do civil liberties, independent institutions, a free press and the right to question those who govern us.
The government of the day is not the owner of India. It is the temporary custodian of power entrusted to it by the people. No Prime Minister, minister, election commissioner or political party is above public scrutiny. If the government is confident that it has acted properly, it should welcome transparency. If the CEC has discharged his duties impartially, the evidence should establish that. If irregularities have occurred, they must be exposed and corrected.
What the country cannot afford is a situation in which citizens fear arrest for demanding answers and the government mistakes silence for public confidence. We must not wait for an official declaration of Emergency before defending the freedoms that make democracy meaningful. When citizens are detained for demanding accountability, when peaceful dissent is treated as a threat and when the government appears more determined to defend powerful officials than to answer public concerns, every Indian has reason to be worried.
Are we living in an undeclared Emergency? That question deserves a serious answer from the government. India’s democracy belongs to its people. The Constitution is not the property of the ruling party and the right to question those in power does not disappear when the questions become uncomfortable. A government that is truly confident in its democratic mandate should have the courage to face its critics, the integrity to investigate allegations against powerful institutions and the humility to remember that it ultimately answers to the people.
