Repeatedly questioning electoral institutions after defeat weakens democratic legitimacy. Comment.

Democratic legitimacy rests on losers' consent: the losing side accepts the result because the process was fair. Under Article 324, the Election Commission (EC) superintends, directs and controls elections, including the electoral rolls [2]. Reflexive attacks on the EC after every defeat do erode legitimacy. Scrutiny backed by evidence, however, strengthens it.

How reflexive questioning weakens legitimacy

• Erodes losers' consent: blame has moved from EVMs to the Chief Election Commissioner after successive losses. This signals that no adverse outcome is acceptable and weakens the mandate of elected governments.
• Ignores settled adjudication: in ADR v. ECI (2026 INSC 564), the Supreme Court upheld Bihar's Special Intensive Revision (SIR). It found a legal basis in Section 21(3), RP Act 1950 read with Article 324, and a "rational nexus" to an accurate roll [1]. Calling the exercise illegal is no longer tenable.
• Personalises institutions: targeting individual commissioners weakens a constitutional body. Every future election suffers, whoever wins.
• Breeds voter cynicism: telling voters the system is rigged may keep them from voting, which undermines the adult franchise under Article 326.

Why scrutiny is not always delegitimising

• Safeguards came from challenge: petitions against the SIR led the Court to accept Aadhaar as the 12th document (order of 8 September 2025) [1]. This was vital for poor and migrant voters.
• Individual rights remain open: the EC may form only a prima facie view on citizenship. Deletions on that ground must be referred to the Competent Authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, and voters wrongly deleted can seek judicial review [1].
• Scale justifies vigilance: this was Bihar's first intensive revision since 2003 [3], and the final roll stood at about 7.42 crore electors [2]. Changes of that scale merit public questions about exclusion.

The statement therefore holds largely for reflexive, outcome-driven attacks but not for scrutiny through courts and Parliament. The way forward is institutions that people can check. The EC should publish reasons for each deletion and build Aadhaar-type safeguards into every future SIR from day one. Citizenship referrals should be decided before the next election, as the Court urged [1]. Parties, in turn, should take their doubts to legal forums. This mutual restraint serves the EC's motto, "no eligible voter to be left out, and no ineligible person to be included" [2], and upholds the constitutional promise of free and fair elections.